Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC HEALTH BILL [Lords]

Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.

Motion made, Question proposed,
That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the new Clause (Accumulations of rubbish), standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Sir Keith Joseph.—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Question amended, by adding at the end:
and in respect of the new Clause (Turnstiles in public sanitary conveniences), and the Amendments to the Title, lines 6 and 8, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mrs. Patricia McLaughlin.—[Mrs. McLaughlin.]
and:
and in respect of the Amendments to Clause 15, page 10, line 24, and Clause 18, page 11, line 42, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Graham Page.—[Mr. Graham Page.]
and, as amended, agreed to.

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Major Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Clause 15.—(RECOVERY OF COST OF MAINTAINING PUBLIC SEWERS.)

11.7 a.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, in page 10, line 24, at the beginning to insert:
(1) At the beginning of section twenty-four of the Public Health Act, 1936 (under which a local authority may recover the cost of maintaining a sewer from the owners of premises served by the sewer), the following words shall be inserted, namely:—
Except so far as a local authority may resolve that the expenses hereafter described are expenses incurred or to be incurred in carrying out work rendered necessary by traffic upon a highway and shall accordingly be excluded from expenses recoverable from the owners of premises served by the sewer.

Sir William, would it be convenient to the Committee to discuss with this Amendment the Amendments standing in my name in page 10, line 24, to leave out from first "of" to "(under" in line 25 and to insert "the said section twenty-four", and to Clause 18, in page 11, line 42, at the end to add:
as they were not incurred in carrying out work rendered necessary by traffic on a highway and so far otherwise"?
They both deal with much the same subject.

The Deputy-Chairman: Yes, that would be convenient to the Committee.

Mr. Graham Page: The Amendment in page 10, line 24, seeks to amend Section 24 of the Public Health Act, 1936. That is the Section in the Public Health Act which entitles local authorities to recover from frontagers the cost of maintaining or repairing a combined drain. The Section first refers to public sewers, but, later, it is clear that it refers to what is commonly known as a combined drain—that is, a drain or sewer which serves a few houses.
There is something of a history to the Section. It is quite an anomaly as it stands. The general principle concerning drains and sewers and the liability of local authorities for them was laid down as long ago as the Public Health Act, 1875, in which local authorities were made responsible for all sewers. A sewer, to put a brief definition to it, is a drain which serves more than one building. If a drain serves only one building, it is a drain and not a sewer.
It was seen after the 1875 Act that local authorities had become liable for the maintenance of combined drains, drains which serve just a few buildings and which had up to that stage been considered to be private drains rather than sewers. That was partially amended in favour of the local authorities by the Public Health Act, 1890, but the position still remained in dispute. It was finally resolved by Section 24 of the Public Health Act, 1936, which now enables local authorities to recover the cost of maintaining or repairing combined drains from the frontagers who are served by those drains, although calling a combined drain a drain is really mistaken, for it is in law a sewer.
We thus reach this rather ridiculous position. If a householder finds that the


drain joining his house to the public sewer is damaged, the question whether he is liable or not for that damage depends, first, on whether it was a combined drain laid before 1936. If it was, the local authority is responsible, but if it was laid after 1936, the householder has to discover whether the local authority has taken over that drain as a public sewer.
If it has, the local authority is liable and cannot call upon the frontagers for any contribution towards its maintenance or repair. If the local authority has not taken it over, it is wholly the responsibility of the frontagers. An unfortunate householder may find that merely because his drain was laid before 1936 he is responsible for its maintenance and repair.
It is more than likely that a drain laid before 1936 and running under a road has been subjected to damage by traffic on that road. The purpose of my Amendment is to throw on to the general body of ratepayers the damage which occurs to combined drains under roads by reason of the traffic on those roads. It seems to me to be fair and proper that the general body of ratepayers should pay for the maintenance of that type of drain if it has been damaged by the increase of traffic on the roads.
This is not just a theoretical point. I am sure that hon. Members have had constituents bringing it before them on many occasions. Certainly, it is a very practical point for householders. A combined drain for half a dozen houses may have been installed in the early days of this century, when no one contemplated the sort of traffic which might be passing along the road under which the combined drain was laid. Now, the traffic on that road might be very different to what it was on that road before 1936.
It is not the fault of the frontagers or of the householders that the volume of traffic has increased. In many cases, it is through traffic which has nothing whatever to do with residents in the road. I should have thought it was fair and proper that the general body of ratepayers should bear the cost of the maintenance and repair of such a drain if damage is caused by traffic, rather than that the

liability should be imposed upon the individual householders.
That is the gist of my first Amendment. The second Amendment is consequential. The third Amendment, to Clause 18, page 11, line 42, applies the same principle to a Clause which has been introduced into the Bill for recovering the cost of repairing private drains by a local authority, and I am endeavouring to exclude from costs which could be recovered from the householder any costs incurred in rendering the drain fit by reason of the fact that it had been damaged by traffic on the roads.

11.15 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (MT. Graham Page) has repeated to the Committee something of the tangled history of these obligations of frontagers. He seeks to ensure justice to frontagers by giving the local authority discretion to charge to the rates rather than the frontagers that element of any repair cost which the local authority judges is attributable to traffic causes. I must point out to him that this Bill is not the right place and this is not the right occasion to try to do justice to frontagers, and I shall support that argument with several reasons.
I want to say, first, that my right hon. Friend accepts that there is a strong case for re-examining these residuary obligations of frontagers in connection with drains which must have been laid before 1936, which have the characteristic of what are called combined drains. My right hon. Friend is more than willing to look at the whole position under Section 24, and, as my hon. Friend will remember, I invited him during the Committee stage to send to my right hon. Friend all the evidence of hardship on which he could lay his hands, so that my right hon. Friend's examination could be a detailed and constructive one, and I stand by that commitment.
I still say that this is not the occasion to try to do justice. We have not got the facts, we do not know the full details, and we must consult the local authorities about the implications of any change such as my hon. Friend proposes. I still argue that it would be extremely difficult to isolate the effects of traffic as opposed


to all the other causes that might bring about the fracture of what were combined drains, and, anyway, this Bill just is not the vehicle for changing the powers of local authorities in non-precedented ways. My hon. Friend knows that all these reasons remain equally strong. I hope he will be reassured by my repetition of my right hon. Friend's willingness to re-examine the whole of Section 24, and that he will send all the evidence to us.
So much for the general argument against any of these Amendments, but I must add one short point in connection with the Amendment to Clause 18. My hon. Friend is there proposing to do some sort of justice, as he suggests, but only to the frontagers who have to bear expenses imposed by the local authority in the particular circumstances of Clause 18. There are a very great number of other circumstances, particularly under Section 39 of the 1936 Act, where a frontager might have expenses imposed upon him, and I must point out that we can deal with the whole matter much more comprehensively and generally if given time to study the evidence and time to consult the local authorities themselves, even if it means that we shall have to await another vehicle in order to reconsider the whole effect of these old obligations. I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed.

Mr. Graham Page: One is always met with this argument that this is not the right vehicle with which to do the job. I hope that some day there will come before the House the right vehicle to do this particular job. I am greatly reassured by what my hon. Friend has said —that the local authorities may be consulted on this matter and that the Minister himself considers that there is a point to be dealt with in this Amendment.
May I ask my hon. Friend whether he will ask his right hon. Friend to remember, in considering this matter, how astonishing it is what householders have to put up with in the sacred cause of the motor car? They have meters in front of their houses, official parking places in front of their houses, without any sort of compensation, one-way streets, streets where there is no waiting and all the rest, and now, if the householder finds that traffic has damaged his drain, he is called upon to pay the cost of the repairs. This undoubtedly is something

into which the Minister should look. I am greatly relieved that my hon. Friend has said that the Minister will do so. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause,—(ACCUMULATIONS OF RUBBISH.)

(1) If it appears to a local authority that there is on any vacant site in a built-up area an accumulation of rubbish which is seriously detrimental to the amenities of the neighbourhood, the local authority may, subject to the provisions of this section, take such steps for removing the rubbish as they may consider necessary in the interests of amenity.

(2) Not less than twenty-eight days before taking any action under this section, the local authority shall serve on the owner and occupier of the site a notice stating the steps which they propose to take and giving particulars of the following provisions of this subsection: and a person on whom the notice is served and any other person having an interest in the land may within twenty-eight days from the service of the notice—

(a) serve a counter-notice on the local authority stating that he intends to take those steps himself; or
(b) appeal to a magistrates' court on the ground that the local authority were not justified in concluding that action should be taken under this section, or that the steps proposed to be taken are unreasonable.

(3) If a counter-notice is served under the last foregoing subsection. the local authority shall take no further action in the matter under this section unless the person who served the counter-notice either—

(a) fails within what seems to the local authority a reasonable time to begin to take the steps stated in the notice, or
(b) having begun to take those steps fails to make such progress towards their completion as seems to the local authority reasonable.

(4) If an appeal is brought under subsection (2) of this section, the local authority shall take no further action in the matter under this section until the appeal is finally determined or withdrawn; and on the hearing of the appeal the court may direct the local authority to take no further action or may permit the local authority to take such steps as the court may direct or may dismiss the appeal.

(5) In this section "rubbish" means rubble, waste paper, crockery and metal, and any other kind of refuse (including organic matter). but does not include any material accumulated for, or in the course of, any business.—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
Clause 27 in the Bill as drafted is limited to giving local authorities powers to deal, on a once only basis, with sites which have rubbish on them where the rubbish is caused by the demolition of a building. In Committee and on Second Reading, several hon. Members, notably the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), suggested that this power was not wide enough and argued that a local authority should be entitled to see that such a site was kept in a decent state whether or not the bad state of affairs on the site was due to the demolition of a building or not.
I explained that we were limited here, in general, to Clauses which were well precedented in local Acts and that such a power to require maintenance in decent order of a site is not precedented, the precedents applying only to vacant sites where the rubbish upon them arose from the demolition of a building, even then being limited to a once-for-all operation by the local authorities.
I reminded the Committee that there are powers under Section 33 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, though I confess that they are not quite as unambiguously effective as, perhaps, might be wished. I pointed out, also, that it would not be fair to impose, as several hon. Members wished, an invariable obligation on the owner to clear up the rubbish on his site when, in fact, it might not be the owner's fault, or even the occupier's fault, that the rubbish found its way there.
During the discussion, it emerged that there is a handful of precedents, including one recently in a London County Council Bill, giving a local authority power in certain circumstances to clear away rubbish on a vacant site regardless of whether the rubbish came there as a result of the demolition of a building or not, provided that the rubbish is seriously damaging to amenity, but at the local authority's own expense.
The attitude of the hon. Member for Fulham was constructive. He said that that power is rather mingy, but it is better than nothing. As it is precedented, my right hon. Friend has now decided to suggest to the House that such a power should be included in the Bill. Hence the new Clause.
The new Clause provides that the site must be a vacant site, that it must be in a built-up area, because, obviously, this is mainly an urban problem and not a rural one, and the local authority must resolve that the rubbish is a serious damage to amenity. The owner or occupier is safeguarded by being given 28 days' notice so that he may do the job himself if he wishes to avoid having strangers on his land, or he may appeal to the magistrates' court if he feels that the local authority is exaggerating the damage to amenity. There are other provisions in the new Clause to safeguard the local authority against an evasive owner or occupier.
I stress that the new Clause gives powers to a local authority in addition to the existing powers under Clause 27 of the Bill and Section 33 of the 1947 Act. I hope that it will be accepted.

Mr. Michael Stewart: It must be the first time that a Minister has introduced a Clause with five subsections and with the rather startling title, "Accumulations of rubbish." In fact, the Clause is very much more useful than its name might imply. I am very happy to see it on the Notice Paper. As the Parliamentary Secretary said, I raised the matter in Standing Committee, and we are greatly obliged to the Government for having taken up the idea and put it in a form which they feel could properly be included in the Bill. I have only a few points to raise.
I take it that I am right in thinking that the cost of the operation of removing the rubbish will fall on the local authority. There does not seem to be any provision for requiring the owner to make a contribution. Although, in strict justice, he has been responsible for it and he ought to pay some of the cost of removal, if that were to be required it would be difficult to work administratively and it is not really important compared with the job of getting the site clear, which is what the people in the locality, the actual ratepayers, will want. I take it that the local authority must bear the whole cost. However, it would not be very great.
I am a little worried about subsection (5), the definition of "rubbish." In Standing Committee, on several Clauses we kept stumbling over the rule which I understand the lawyers call the


ejusdem generis rule. If I understand it aright, that would mean that, if we said in subsection (5), in the definition,
rubble, waste paper, crockery, metal and any other thing.
the words "other thing" would have to be interpreted to mean other things of the same kind as rubble, waste paper, crockery and metal. I believe that that is the significance of the ejusdem generis rule.
I notice that in subsection (5) the words are
rubble, waste paper, crockery and metal, and any other kind of refuse.
I hope that I am right in assuming that that means what any ordinary person would take it to mean and it does not provide that the rubbish must be of a kind like rubble, waste paper, crockery and metal. It would be very odd if the ejusdem generis rule—the words mean "of the same kind"—could cover the case where in a Bill one deliberately used the words "any other kind." I hope, therefore, that we may take it as certain that any kind of refuse is covered by the new Clause. I think that we all know what refuse is. It is something which has been left there because nobody wants it.
The subsection continues
but does not include any material accumulated for, or in the course of, any business.
I put this case which I consider to be far from imaginary. Certain work has been done in the neighbourhood of the site. While the work was being done, timber was accumulated. For the time being, that may look rather unsightly and tiresome, but, of course, one cannot ask the man to clear away the timber he needs for carrying on the work in the neighbourhood. But let us suppose that, when the work is completed, there are a few shabby bits of timber left about which the man just cannot be bothered to remove because they are not worth the trouble of removing. Would such material left on the site be touched by the new Clause? If not, I should regard that as a pity. I hove that the Parliamentary Secretary will reassure me about that.
Finally, is it the Minister's intention to draw the attention of local authorities in a circular to this new power and the desirability of using it where there is need? I do not suggest that it will be necessary to have a circular on this topic alone. It is very likely that the Bill as

a whole will give rise to the need for a circular informing local authorities of several things, and I feel it would be wise to include in any such circular a note about the new powers they acquire under this useful new Clause.

11.30 a.m.

Sir K. Joseph: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) for what he has said. He is quite right on the first two points which he raised. This power is to be exercised entirely at the cost of local authorities. As the hon. Gentleman said, this is not likely to be a very expensive operation. It is more in the nature of a small tidying-up operation which may have an effect on environment disproportionate to the expense. The reason why we are not seeking elaborately to require owners or occupiers to contribute is that the local authorities' powers are not precedented in that way.
The hon. Gentleman asked what would or would not constitute refuse. He was right in his definition of "refuse", and, rather than spoil the accuracy of what he said, I will not repeat it. He gave an example of some timber which had been left at the end of a job after the bulk of it had been used. In the last resort, any case must be for the courts, but there could well be a situation one day in which the local authority thought that something had been abandoned whereas the person who nut it there thought that it had not. That is why owners and occupiers are given a protective 28 days' notice so that they can apply to the local authority, and, if necessary, go to the magistrates' court.
If a person dumps something which he thinks is of value on someone else's site, he has only himself to blame if no one protects him. There could be an interesting case about the exact stage at which an old car chassis is metal, in which case it comes within the new Clause, or is something more than metal, in which case it might be outside the new Clause. This decision must rest on the facts.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about a circular. My right hon. Friend will direct local authorities' attention to their powers under the new Clause when he sends out a circular on the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(TURNSTILES IN PUBLIC SANITARY CONVENIENCES.)

(1) After the commencement of this Act, no turnstile shall be installed as a means of access to, or to any part of, a public sanitary convenience provided by a county council or local authority under section eighty-seven of the Public Health Act, 1936, or any enactment reproduced by that section.

(2) Where, at the commencement of this Act, access to, or to any part of, a public sanitary convenience provided as aforesaid, and under the management of a county council or local authority, is obtained by means of a turnstile, the county council or local authority shall before the expiration of twelve months from the commencement a this Act substitute some other means of access.—[Mrs. McLaughlin.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mrs. Patricia McLaughlin: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The object of this proposed new Clause is to try to remove what has been a long-standing annoyance to women, namely, having to pass through a turnstile before being able to use a public lavatory. This matter has been discussed by many women's organisations throughout the country. Over the past nine years they have tried to get something done about it by approaching various local authorities. They have come up against a blank wall. This matter has led to a great disturbance and a considerable amount of feeling among women.
It is often forgotten that women who are out shopping and carrying baskets and having to take, perhaps, children by the hand are not in any better position than elderly women, than those who are feeble, incapacitated or infirm. They are all equal in deserving a certain amount of decent respect and they do not get it because of the way in which public conveniences are organised for them.
Anyone who has looked at these turnstiles—I have looked at some of them over the last few weeks—will realise just how stupid they are. They could only have been designed by a man with no idea of the needs and number of women who would use these turnstiles and the amount of difficulty which they would cause. It seems that local authorities are determined to get their money's worth out of the needs of women and, obviously, they regard turnstiles as a source of revenue. Pressure by women's organisations up to date has not seemed

to get across to local authorities the need for removing these turnstiles and for providing other means of access and exit. The new Clause is designed to make it illegal for local authorities to install turnstiles in women's public lavatories and to provide that within twelve months of the Bill becoming law they shall have to remove all existing turnstiles.
My own daughter told me last week that she had to go to the rescue of an elderly lady who was in difficulties at one of these turnstiles in London. She probably knows more about the problem than the average youngster because she knows about the discussion which has been going on. However, she was extremely distressed to see this elderly lady in difficulties. She had caught her handbag and was unable to extricate it herself without someone else putting another penny in and turning the turnstile thus enabling the handbag to be removed.
I know that the Minister has agreed to meet a delegation on this matter and that this afternoon he will hear their various points of view. I know that in answer to a Question earlier this week he said that he wished to wait and hear its views. I hope that today the Parliamentary Secretary will not merely say that he will give sympathetic consideration to this point, but will accept the new Clause even though I admit that it is a blunderbuss way of bringing about what is desired. But we have to use the methods which are available to us, and this new Clause certainly covers the point.
I hope that if the Parliamentary Secretary says that he cannot accept this proposal he will tell us the reasons why. If he does accept it, of course the difficulty will be resolved. But it is a bad thing to try women's patience too long. This problem has tried their patience for a very long time. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary knows a good deal about women and will, therefore, realise that they are very persistent when they feel there is something which ought to be put right. Their persistence will continue until this matter is put right. If he accepts the new Clause the difficulty will be solved. There is no doubt that women are being treated as pennyworths in the country. They should be treated with much greater respect.
In view of the discussion in the House earlier in the week and on previous occasions, and since there is a Bill dealing with this subject on the Order Paper for Second Reading today, I shall say no more except that this new Clause is designed to do something to remedy a grave injustice which is being suffered by women.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: I have very great pleasure in seconding the proposed new Clause. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary appreciates the significance of the all-party support which is given to it. The united front presented by women Members across the Floor of the Committee on this matter echoes the sentiments of a letter which I received from a woman in Devon with the heart-cry. "Women of the western world unite. You have nothing to lose but your cages."
I am delighted that the Bill gives us the opportunity of taking action in accordance with the principle and purpose of the Private Members' Bill which I introduced last week and to which the House gave unanimous support. As the Parliamentary Secretary will appreciate, in the normal way a private Member in introducing a Measure, even if there is no opposition to it in the House, has difficulty in getting time to enable it to go through. I think that it was, in the words of my pious mother-in-law, intended that this proposal should become law, since it came so quickly on the heels of the Measure which was accepted by the House last week. Therefore, we want action and not merely words this morning.
The issue is perfectly clear. It is that the installation of turnstiles in public lavatories is not something which is just one of those little gimmicks to which women object because it is inconvenient. It is a practice that is so dangerous that it cannot be left to the permissive powers of local authorities to decide whether turnstiles should be used in public conveniences.
As I understand the law, the control over the internal design of public lavatories is within the discretion of local authorities. Therefore, some legislative step must be taken if every turnstile is to be removed from public conveniences.
Because of the massive evidence which I believe has been pouring in to all hon. Members since this matter was ventilated,

I urge most seriously that we cannot lose any more time in getting this matter dealt with. The danger to many people from these mechanisms is so great that Parliament must make this obligatory upon local authorities. We cannot wait for the slower processes of democratic pressure on hundreds of local authorities throughout the land, some of which will be responsive and others will not.
I can prove that I am not exaggerating when I read a letter which I received following the introduction of my Bill. A lady in Surrey wrote to me to say that the reports of our recent debate on the matter had brought a sad memory to her. She said:
My sister tried to free an old lady who was caught up in a turnstile at Felbridge, near East Grinstead. After she was finally released, the iron bars jerked backwards one of which hit my sister across the eyes. From this injury, she died the same evening.
Other letters speak of physical injuries to young children. One speaks of an experience that the writer had in Blackpool on 5th July this year and states:
While waiting to go through the turnstile, a woman with a small child about five years old was going, through when the little girl caught her fingers in the mechanism. When the fingers were eventually removed, two of her fingernails were hanging off and both fingers had large black blisters. The mother was in such a state that she could not do anything. I administered first-aid as much as I could and sent her along to the ambulance station, where the two fingernails were removed.
Another letter speaks of a mother with a slightly mentally deficient daughter who screamed pitifully when the mother had to try to compel her to go through the turnstile to the toilet. Another is from a teacher at Beckenham who had to take a party of eighty-five small girls on a visit to Windsor. She said:
As far as we could ascertain, all the conveniences provided by the local authorities in the town are of this type. Many of the little girls were frightened of the spikes and they are so close together that it is quite impossible for an adult to accompany the children through.
Another letter is from a nurse with gynaecological experience warning Parliament most solemnly of the danger to pregnant women by barring the way to conveniences by means of mechanisms which are quite impossible for them to negotiate.
We all know, too, that apart from the question of young children, elderly


people and pregnant women, there is case after case of the mechanical failure of these turnstiles. I have over a hundred letters which have come in since I introduced my Bill giving examples of people who were trapped on the other side of one of these cages. As one woman said,
If my daughter had not been on the other side and able to go for the police. I might have been ill or have died before anybody became aware of it.
The House of Commons cannot simply shrug off this kind of evidence and say that we should like just a nice little debate this morning and then leave it to the Minister to give us his usual reply. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not give us the reply that his right hon. Friend the Minister sent to one of my correspondents who wrote to him about this matter some time ago and was told to contact the councils. I have also a sheaf of evidence from women's organisations who have tried the job of contacting the councils. It may be that they have succeeded in one case only to find that they have failed in another.
11.45 a.m.
One woman said that she had battled for years in Lincoln to get the local council to remove the turnstiles. She said that as a result of her efforts,
the turnstile was taken out of the Ladies at St. Peter-at-Arches, but when new ones were erected at South Park, in went the turnstile".
Other women's organisations say the same. From Guildford, for example, the members of the Women's Cooperative Guild tell me that they have battled for years to get these turnstiles removed. Other women's organisations joined in and at last they got the turnstile removed from the main bus station —"of all places", says my correspondent in parentheses—but they protested about other turnstiles in the town, so far in vain. Here again, I could give massive evidence.
I will give one example which is greatly relevant to this discussion. It is from the Urban District Council of Ash-bourne, in Derbyshire, whose official notice outside the turnstile I quoted in the discussion last week. It received publicity and the Press approached Mrs. Doris Grimshaw, the only woman mem-

ber of the Ashbourne Urban District Council. She leapt to the defence of the turnstile and said that both the turnstile and the notice were put there for very good reasons. She said, almost with pride, "It cost us £300 to put up that turnstile and it saved us locks on six lavatory doors inside". She made the point that the people who use the turnstile and the lavatory are mostly visitors to the Ashbourne district. "Why", she asked," should we have to put this cost on the rates unless and until other local authorities are compelled to do the same?"
What she does not realise is that the people from her area are among those who travel the country and send in complaints about the turnstiles in Blackpool, Lincoln or elsewhere. This proves that we ought not to deal with this matter on a local basis. It has now become a matter for national action, and for urgent national action.
I had it pointed out to me that St. Neots, for example, has just built a marvellous new public convenience. I believe that the town is proud of it. It won an honourable mention in the Architectural Review for being one of the smartest-looking modern public conveniences in the country. But what do the users of it write to me to say? First, they tell me that although the men walk in on the ground floor level, the women have to climb a steep flight of steps. Some of them are elderly women with rheumatic hearts and some of them are pregnant. Having got to the top of the steps, they find that there is a wonderful new turnstile from top to bottom of the conveniences. Complaints have come to me about this lavatory showing that the women would far rather have one which was less architecturally brilliant and one which more readily met their needs.
Therefore, we say this morning that we want this action taken at this the first opportunity that is now so fortunately available to us. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary not to say that he must wait until his right hon. Friend has seen the deputation from the National Council of Women this afternoon. The arguments that all the women Members in the House of Commons on both sides are putting to the hon. Gentleman this morning are those that the National Council of Women


has asked us to put. The Council backed my Bill, it backs the Clause and if there is any point in the Minister seeing the deputation at all, he will carry out its wishes by accepting this Clause today.

Dame Irene Ward: I add my support to this new Clause. I am delighted that it has attracted uniform support from both sides of the House. It is often said that women in Parliament do not join together in support of any cause whatsoever. At any rate, this debate today will disprove that allegation.
When the National Council of Women wrote, as they did, explaining to all of us the difficulty which they were up against with the local authorities, each hon. Member took his or her own course to try to find a solution. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) very cleverly introduced her Ten Minutes Rule Bill, which, I think, was a great success. It drew the attention of the country to this matter, and the fact that she has had so much correspondence, and so much support, should be a reassurance to my right hon. Friend the Minister and to the Parliamentary Secretary that this is, in fact, something that the women of the country, in the main, most wholeheartedly desire. Several hon. Members wrote to the Minister and I hope that today we shall hear that action will follow.
First, I should like to say to the Parliamentary Secretary that I assume, because he is a most sympathetic Minister and a most competent Parliamentary performer, as everyone agrees, that he would wish to support the principle of this new Clause. He cannot possibly disagree with any of the arguments put forward by hon. Members supporting the Clause and, indeed, supporting the Bill that the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn introduced last week.
I emphasise that there can be no reason at all why a disabled woman should be at a disadvantage compared with a disabled man, or why a spastic girl or a young woman should be at a disadvantage compared with a spastic boy or young man. There can be no reason for this discrimination. The point is that a great many local authorities have not embarked on the turnstile method. It is, therefore, absolutely urgent that action

should be taken now, or at any rate that the Minister's decision should be given quite clearly, so that no local authority should be under any misapprehension as to the views both of the Minister and of the House of Commons on this matter. I assume, and I am sure that I am right, that the Parliamentary Secretary is 100 per cent. behind this new Clause and the speeches and evidence that have been put in favour of it.
I go one step further. It is true that when the National Council of Women made its approach to the Minister he said that it should make its representations, in the first place, to the local authorities. I want to know whether the Minister, at that stage or, indeed, before that stage, got in touch with the Minister of Health. I am glad to see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health is here today. This is not only a matter for the Minister of Housing and Local Government. It is also a matter for the Minister of Health.
I want to say how much I personally —and I am sure that all my colleagues feel the same—welcome the really humane approach of the new Minister of Health to some of the problems which arise through people being handicapped, who have to go to hospital, or who are elderly. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has said that we have humanised the treatment of those suffering from ailments, disablements, or sickness. I want to be sure, because I have a very shrewd suspicion that there is far too little co-ordination between Government Departments, that this is not only a matter for the Minister of Housing and Local Government, but also for the Minister of Health.
I should like to know whether the Minister of Housing and Local Government, before he gave his advice to the National Council of Women, got in touch with the Minister of Health to find out his views on this matter. Further, I should like to know whether, within a short time of the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn introducing her Ten Minutes Rule Bill, the Minister of Health was on the telephone to the Minister of Housing and Local Government to say that it was really quite intolerable that there should be any


delay in the introduction of a Bill of this kind.
It is very important that we should know that, considering how much hardship and suffering are caused through disablement, to the war disabled, to spastics, to the elderly, and to pregnant women. There is an immense amount of information on this available in the Ministry of Health, and if the Minister of Housing and Local Government feels in any difficulty about dealing with the local authorities he might draw in great support from the Minister of Health.
When my hon. Friend replies—I do not know whether we are to have replies from both Parliamentary Secretaries; I sometimes think that I should like to create a new precedent and have two replies instead of one—I do not want him, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, to say that health questions have nothing to do with him because they belong to the Ministry of Health. So perhaps we may hear from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health how she and her right hon. Friend view this very important matter.
I fully understand, as do those of us associated with Parliamentary and local government, that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government must, when any proposed legislation impinges on local government, consult local government. That is quite understandable. I want to know whether there is any real objection to a Minister giving guidance in public, not in private, because part of all this righting of injustice and dealing with problems of this kind arise from the difficulty of ascertaining what is the public view. The public are very wise in their generation. When they find a Minister taking action to put to the country what a problem really is, we get, as the hon. Member for Blackburn has found out, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin) has found out in introducing this new Clause, evidence pouring in. So I can see no objection to the Minister of Housing and Local Government announcing to the country that he considers this to be a matter that should be immediately dealt with by the local authorities concerned.
12 noon.
Surely the responsibility of a Minister is not just to consult behind closed doors. I have never found any difficulty in my life, and I hope I shall never find any difficulty in future, about expressing a view or hearing views. I do not expect everybody to agree with me. I sometimes make the most outrageous and ill-informed statements, but I think that the people of this country do prefer somebody who will speak out to consultations going on behind closed doors, or to Ministers saying that they cannot say anything in case they offend somebody.
We cannot wait on that kind of thing in the year 1961, and for the life of me I really cannot see, whatever may be the fate of this Clause today, why the Minister of Housing and Local Government should be in any difficulty about pointing out to the County Councils' Association and the Association of Municipal Corporations what are his views. And, as I have said, of course the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who has had such a wide experience of local government, is bound also to consider the view that we are expressing in the House today. If the local authorities have not come to a wise conclusion, why cannot the Minister of Housing tell them?
I have in my County Borough of Tynemouth a first-class local authority. I may say that we do not have turnstiles. It is a first-class local authority. I tell it exactly what I think, and it tells me what it thinks. We do not always agree. It does not always agree with me, I do not always agree with it, but we have a mutual respect for each other, and my local authority would regret it very much if I did not express a view, in the same way that I would regret it if it did not express a view.
I must say that I find it quite ridiculous that a Minister of the State, on a subject of this kind, on which we all feel very strongly indeed, cannot say publicly that he thinks the local authorities ought to act in this manner, and I hope that that is what he is going to do.
I am a vice-president of the Association of Municipal Corporations, and when I hear what happens to this Clause today I intend to write to Sir Harold Banwell and tell him how astonished I was to hear that there had been any


objection on the part of the Association to dealing with a very important matter which affects women everywhere. I hope that the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Minister of Health will find time to go to the Association of Municipal Corporations, because I do not think that it harms Ministers to leave their Departments and meet ordinary people. I hope that they will go round making it quite clear to the Association of Municipal Corporations what the House of Commons thinks on this matter, because I am sure there will not be any opposition to the new Clause.
If my hon. Friend cannot give a categorical assurance today that he will accept this new Clause, then I hope that we shall have a categorical assurance that a place will be found next Session, far such a piece of legislation, so that we shall be in no doubt whatsoever that OUT will is to prevail.
Quite often from time to time we women Members of Parliament on this side of the House—and I dare say that women Members on the other side of the House have done the same—have discussed what sort of things we should like to see in the Queen's Speech, and from time to time, on this side of the House at any rate, we have informed those whose job it is to prepare the Queen's Speech that we should occasionally like to see in it something which particularly affects the women. Here is a great opportunity.
I do not want to put a pistol to the head of my hon. Friend, but the local authorities, I think, have behaved abominably. I do not believe that they have ever had this case put to them by their associations. It is about time that the ordinary local authorities, on which a great number of very good men and women are serving, ought to have from their various associations information about what has happened over this question.
At any rate, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will accept the new Clause, but if he feels a little nervous because he gets opposition from the Association of Municipal Corporations, and he wants to be surrounded by women Members of Parliament to give him support, and he feels a little nervous because the House is going into recess, I hope that we can have an absolutely firm under-

taking—and that it will be put forward to the Prime Minister—that in the next Queen's Speech a place will be found for this piece of legislation, which, I think, is fair and just and what the women of the country are entitled to expect.

Dr. Barnett Stross: I was delighted to hear the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) particularly as she is a vice-president of the Association of Municipal Corporations. As I have that honour too, it is rather fitting that I follow her. I agree with everything she said—except one thing: I am a little more impatient about this matter than she is and I would rather not wait till next Session.

Dame Irene Ward: One must give the Prime Minister a let-out.

Dr. Stross: That I understand. I know the courage and tenacity of the hon. Lady, and I know she agrees with me when I say that this abominable practice has really gone on long enough.
I think the men in the country—and I include myself, of course—have all been guilty in that it has not been thought about by them, but I would particularly blame men like myself, medical men, for not having taken steps, but having waited for women themselves to complain about it. If the problem is examined on medical grounds then it is utterly true that this is a matter of pure health, and on health grounds turnstiles should be abolished immediately.
There can be no defence of them. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) the letters she has had about women in advanced states of pregnancy, women who are elderly, young nervous children, and people who are crippled, all of whom have great difficulty in attempting to go through these contraptions.
I do not know how long they have existed. The first reference I have found to turnstiles in the literature is at a date in 1643. I do not think that there was any piece of automatic machinery at that time. I believe that in the main a turnstile was used rather to let people go through and to keep cattle out. Now we use turnstiles in order to make women suffer as much inconvenience as possible for the sake of some problematical


revenue, a revenue which can just as easily be obtained, and is obtained, by having closed doors and putting coins in small attachments on the doors.
I do not think women mind so much that they have to find a coin, although that is bad enough and inconvenient enough. Anyone who is married and has been married for some time knows very well that whenever his wife, when they are out together, puts her hand out he does not have to ask what it is she wants, but puts his hand in his pocket and takes out a penny. We all know that women do not go carrying pennies necessarily with them. If they are going about with children they may need more than one penny; they may need two or three or four pennies. Very inconvenient it is indeed. However, I am not interested so much in the financial part of the problem.
It is not only in pregnancy that we get what I can only call an assault upon women, but many women when they have had children must find relief urgently, often without notice or at least at very short notice, and they require a convenience of this type. It is a physical problem. Why should they be subjected to bars of this description? It is grossly improper that women should be penalised and should be treated as if they were second-rate citizens. There is a feeling of that kind about it.
I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government can remember what it was like to go through a turnstile like that for the first time when he was a little boy. I can remember. One felt very nervous and I was certainly not a spastic or a cripple. I was just a child. When at the age of about 7 I had to go through these things and had to push with all my strength it was unpleasant. Of course when no one was looking I climbed over them.
The Parliamentary Secretary should accept the Clause and should not say merely that the matter will be sympathetically considered. His association with local authorities makes him answerable to us on the matter. It is right that that should be so, but we are all glad to see the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health sitting on the Front Bench opposite and taking note. I am sure that if

she had to answer it would be impossible for her to rebut our pleas on the ground of health, and I am largely speaking as a medical man today. I came to the House to do so and to add my voice to the representations which have already been made on this matter. I feel strongly about it and I also feel rather guilty about it, because men should have been bringing this matter forward and not the women, and certainly medical men. On their behalf I apologise and say that if I can do anything today by action rather than speech I shall be glad to do it.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: May a second male voice be added in support of the Clause? I sincerely congratulate the hon. Lady the Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin) on putting the Clause on the Notice Paper and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) on having introduced a Bill last week which has drawn such a great measure of public attention to this matter.
Perhaps I have a little right to speak on behalf of this proposal, because I fought my first election fifty-two years ago on the issue of free lavatories for women. It was on my twenty-first birthday and I was a candidate for the Finsbury Borough Council. I was defeated by 30 votes, but that has not deterred me on this issue.
The thing that has impressed me both in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, when she introduced her Bill, and in the debate today, is how taboos have been removed. When I first raised this issue it was almost regarded as indecent that a young man should refer to these things. I remember that at that time Mr. Bernard Shaw wrote an article in one of the quarterly magazines on "The Unmentionable Case for Woman Suffrage" and that unmentionable case was that women should have equality with men in the provision of lavatories and toilets. I hope that the day will come when the phrase "spend a penny" will be as irrelevant as "Who goes home?" is in this House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn said that as the result of publicity given last week to her Bill all hon. Members had received considerable


correspondence. That certainly has been my experience. The Slough and District Branch of the National Council of Women, whose secretary lives in Windsor and who is very well aware of the cruel mechanisation of women's lavatories in that royal borough, has written in the strongest terms pointing out how women with children, old women, invalids, crippled women and pregnant women suffer from the present arrangements.
The evidence submitted by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn shows that this is not only a cruel institution, but is a dangerous one as well. I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) in urging the Parliamentary Secretary Ito regard this as an S.O.S. and not a matter to be deferred. It seems to me to be such an outrage that the Government, for once, should break with precedent and should agree to accept the Clause.
12.15 p.m.
I notice that there is no sex discrimination in the new Clause and I want to make a plea on behalf of the men as well. There are men's lavatories in which these turnstiles are placed. There is one at Paddington Station, and I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to agree that he will make a plea to British Railways to abolish turnstiles not only in the women's lavatories, but also in the men's lavatories in railway stations. I have seen in the men's lavatories at Paddington Station disabled men finding the greatest difficulty in navigating the mechanism of those turnstiles.
I earnestly plead with the Parliamentary Secretary to accept the Clause and to realise the depth of feeling there is about this subject. This afternoon, he is to receive a deputation from the National Council of Women. What better news could he give to them than that he has accepted the Clause? I want at the very least to say to him that he ought not to allow next week to pass, before we adjourn for the Recess, without informing the House of what he has been able to tell the National Council of Women.
I join in trying to express what I know is the unanimous opinion of the House that this outrage ought to be ended and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us that the Government are prepared to end it.

Sir K. Joseph: I hope that the Committee will allow me, before I deal with the arguments which have been put forward, to draw one general conclusion from this whole episode, because I think there is a lesson for all of us in it. My right hon. Friend, the Minister, has had a number of representations. He has been approached by women's organisations and he has advised them to get in touch, in the first place, with local authorities. But until very recently neither he, nor, I suspect hon. Members, have been bombarded as they are now being with examples of the ill effects of this sort of installation. Yet the impression that I get from the speeches of hon. Members is that there have been for years deep-seated individual grievances all over the country and that many thousands of citizens have been drawing dreadful comparisons between "we" and "they" and saying, "If only 'they' would do something about it," and yet "they" probably did not know of the grievance.
I pay a warm tribute to all the women's organisations which have canalised these grievances and brought them so publicly to the attention of all of us. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin) and the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) for their interest in the matter and to all the other hon. Members who have spoken and taken an interest in it. I see a number of other hon. Members present who are particularly interested in it. It would be uncharitable if I did not pay a special tribute to the "pioneer," the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway), who was fighting this fight before many of us were born.
There is no doubt whatsoever in my right hon. Friend's mind that this subject arouses strong feelings and must be dealt with with the maximum seriousness and speed compatible with the proper consideration of the implications of whatever is done. We have to ensure that the action that is taken is effective and not ill-considered. My right hon. Friend is, as the Committee knows, this afternoon receiving a deputation of women's organisations.
I think I ought to make plain that local authorities are not bound to provide public lavatories at all. They are


given a discretion to do so. They have a discretionary power under the Public Health Act and whether they do so or not, and how, if they do so, they do it, are entirely matters between them and their ratepayers. My right hon. Friend comes into the picture only when the local authority needs loan sanction to provide a public lavatory, and it has not been his practice to give local authorities directions on such occasions as to details of internal design and equipment.
One has always to balance the need to guide local authorities with the need to treat them as responsibile organisations composed of responsible human beings who do not welcome interference in every detail from Whitehall. I can also speak for my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health in explaining that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health does not have direct powers in this matter either. Of course, there is consultation the whole while between my right hon. Friends the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Minister of Health, as there was in this matter, too, and when the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn introduced her Bill.
But it appears now—now that all the evidence is pouring in—that there may well be need for guidance to local authorities, if no more, and this is why we have every reason to be grateful to the organisations and the hon. Members who have raised the whole subject. I am not going to pick up individual parts of the speeches that have been made. I thought all of them were strong, and all of them added to my right hon. Friend's reasons to think that something needs to be done.
However, I should particularly like to associate myself with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) in stressing the implications of these turnstiles for disabled people. We have all taken the points about pregnant women and women who for health reasons need quick recourse to public lavatories, but the point about the disabled adds to the argument very strongly.
Hon. Members have concentrated on putting the point of view of users of the lavatories—and quite right, too—but it would be lacking in courage on my part

if I did not point out that there must be another side to the picture. After all, local authorities have women sitting on them. Local authorities have taken decisions in many cases to have these turnstiles, and they must be assumed to have decided to do so for certain reasons. I will not say that all the reasons were, perhaps, adequate, but there must be sound reasons when a public lavatory is put up. The local authority has to make sure that arrangements are made to secure decency, privacy and cleanliness. There are various ways of guaranteeing these proper objectives, and in some of them turnstiles can play a proper part.

Dr. Stross: I think that the hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that one of the reasons why this matter has not been handled by local authorities at their level is probably due to this strange feeling of false modesty from which all of us suffer. Normally, it is no use asking women who are members of local authorities to raise the issue with men present. That is one of the reasons why it has not been done.

Sir K. Joseph: I think that may very well be true, but I think that the taboos, as the hon. Member for Eton and Slough said, are disappearing rather rapidly.
The new Clause and the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Blackburn would tear down these turnstiles regardless—regardless of the reasons for which they were put there, regardless of the implications for decency, privacy and cleanliness and regardless of the arrangements that would have to be made to secure decency, privacy and cleanliness if the existing arrangements, which in some cases include turnstiles, were obliterated.

Mrs. Castle: is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a contradiction in the arguments of the local authorities here? On the one hand, some of them tell the women's organisations that they put up turnstiles because that enables them to dispense with the services of an attendant. In so far as they do that the considerations of decency, hygiene and health are not safeguarded. My complaint is that lavatories with turnstiles but no attendant are neglected and filthy. I can send the hon. Gentleman fifty letters to that effect. Also, many local authorities put a turnstile in a lavatory


and have an attendant there, and, therefore, they are not saving money, which they said was the purpose of putting up the turnstile.

Sir K. Joseph: I listened to the hon. Lady's speech, but I do not think that she brought out the very important point that she is now making, that often turnstiles coincide with lack of cleanliness. That is a very important point in connection with what I shall come to in a moment, and I think it will help us.
But I am not espousing the case of the local authorities. What I am saying is that we must give them a chance to make their views known. If we were to accept the Clause we should require a great deal of work to be done and a considerable expense would fall on ratepayers, and it seems only reasonable—after all, the hon. Member for Eton and Slough has waited fifty years for this apotheosis—-that I should suggest that we might have to wait another few months. This, in sum, is what my right hon. Friend proposes that he should do.
My right hon. Friend will urgently—when I say "urgently" I mean within the next fortnight—send out to local authorities a detailed questionnaire asking them to give details of those cases where they have turnstiles, why they have turnstiles and what would be involved if the turnstiles were torn out. My right hon. Friend will seek to discover from the local authorities all the snags he would meet in following up the suggestion made by the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend in putting forward the Bill and the new Clause. He will then consider the matter in an urgent sense when he gets the returns—we must remember that the summer holidays are upon us, and they affect returns from local authorities as they would the work which would have to be carried out if the new Clause were accepted—and see whether there is any advice or guidance that he should give to local authorities.
If my right hon. Friend decides that there is some advice or guidance that he should give, or if he decides that there is some action that should be taken, he will then seek the co-operation of local authorities urgently in securing that action, and only if action is necessary and he cannot get their co-operation will there be any need for or question of legislation.
12.30 p.m.
Hon. Members might say, if I finish at this point, that they would have continually to prod my right hon. Friend to get the answers, and that action would be deferred indefinitely. But I want to reassure them at once that my right hon. Friend will get this information from the local authorities as soon as possible. He will study it as soon as possible, and he undertakes to make a further statement to the House itself by the end of this year at the latest.

Mrs. Castle: Too long.

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Lady must realise that the holiday season is upon us, that local authorities will get the questionnaire within a fortnight, that they must reply in considerable detail, and that, some time in September or early October, my right hon. Friend will study the results of the questionnaire. It is not giving him very much time if he guarantees to make a statement to the House by the end of the year. He will try to do it earlier, but I do not want to raise false hopes.

Mrs. Castle: If the right hon. Gentleman accepted this Clause, these turnstiles would all be abolished by the end of twelve months. We have been kept waiting for fifty years and we are not prepared to wait another five years.

Sir K. Joseph: But the hon. Lady is herself prepared to wait twelve months, and to do that she is suggesting that my right hon. Friend, should make a sledgehammer attack on the problem, without giving the local authorities a chance to make their views known, without studying the implications involved, and without making sure that we get decency, privacy and cleanliness at the end of the operation. It may well be that his advice to local authorities will secure a substantial improvement within twelve months
There is a part of the new Clause where I can be more helpful. Subsection (1) says that
… no turnstile shall be installed …
following the passage of this Bill. I suggest that there is no need to legislate for that purpose. My right hon. Friend undertakes that, pending the results of his study, he will ask that no local authority shall install a turnstile in any new


scheme, so, at least to that extent, I can give the Committee the satisfaction it requires. I hope that the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn will pack up in a parcel all the letters and evidence she has and send it to me or to my right hon. Friend as soon as she can. I hope that other hon. Members with detailed evidence will send it to us as soon as possible, since it will help us considerably.
Finally, I must give a negative answer at this stage to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough, who asked about British Railways. I cannot answer for British Railways at this Box, but I will pass on what he has said to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport as soon as possible.
In view of the programme which my right hon. Friend is willing to undertake and the detailed study which he will ensure will be given to this problem by the local authorities and the Government, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West will be prepared to withdraw the Clause.

Mr. William Hamilton: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, will he give an undertaking—since I do not see a representative from the Scottish Office here—closely to consult the Secretary of State for Scotland, because women in Scotland are just as reluctant to pay a penny—perhaps more so—than are English women? If we are to have turnstiles in Scotland when they have been abolished in England, I cannot answer for the consequences. Will he, therefore, undertake to consult the Secretary of State with a view to having them abolished throughout the United Kingdom?

Sir K. Joseph: indicated assent.

Mrs. McLaughlin: I have listened with care to what my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has said, and while naturally I feel disappointed that he is unable to accept the Clause, nevertheless his assurance that the Minister will ensure that no new turnstiles are installed pending the result of the inquiry is at least helpful.
I am, however, disturbed when I think of the term "end of the year". It is a long time to wait until the end of the year, despite the holidays and despite the fact that it is so difficult to gather information from the local authorities at

this time. Perhaps my hon. Friend could give an assurance that the Minister's statement will not be near the end of the year but as near as possible to the date of our return after the Summer Recess, so that we can get a move on with this matter and see that these horrible installations are got rid of, probably quicker than by doing it through this Bill. If we could have such an assurance, I would ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

Mr. M. Stewart: The matter we have been discussing will not come by any means entirely new to the Parliamentary Secretary. There was the very striking speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) when she moved her Ten Minutes Rule Bill on this matter. The possibility of making use of this Bill for the purpose was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) during the Standing Committee. Thus, this new Clause is only the last of several indications that the Government have had.
It did not seem to me that the hon. Gentleman went anything like as far as the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) was asking for earlier. She was asking for at least a categorical assurance that a measure of this kind—'if this Clause were not accepted—would be included in the Queen's Speech for the next Session of Parliament. We have not got a categorical assurance about anything from the hon. Gentleman—no, I will correct that. We have not a categorical assurance of any legislative result. We have only an assurance that certain consultations will be undertaken.

Sir K. Joseph: Surely what I undertook on behalf of my right hon. Friend was that, if he decides, in the light of the evidence—from both points of view—that there is need far action, he will seek it in co-operation with the local authorities. Only if he does not get that cooperation will there be any need for legislative action.

Mr. Stewart: That is what I said. We have no categorical assurance of legislation such as requested by the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth.

Dame Irene Ward: I think it only fair to point out that even I could hardly


expect my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to give an undertaking about putting legislation in the Queen's Speech. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that, having made these suggestions, we can get on with the job, and I believe that my hon. Friend means what he says—that if local authorities do not co-operate then legislation will follow. Perhaps he could expand that a little more and give a firmer assurance on that point, because, if I may say so, that part of his speech was a little weak.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Lady says that it would not be reasonable for her to ask the Parliamentary Secretary for an assurance about the Queen's Speech, but, reasonable or not, that is what she did earlier. We all heard her do it, some of us with some degree of enthusiasm.
The Parliamentary Secretary has said that we must hear the other side of this question. I have reminded him that in the Standing Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East connected this subject with the Bill, and this new Clause itself has been on the Notice Paper for some days. I have not found that local authority associations are at all slow to express their views by letter to Members concerned when a Bill about which they have any worry or alarm is before Parliament.
Has the hon. Gentleman any positive reason for believing that the local authority associations object to this Clause? He said that they might. He did not give us to understand that he had received from any local authority or from any of the associations of local authorities any ground for objecting to the Clause. When he tried to put up reasons against the general idea of the Clause, that was really the weakest part of his speech, and I am sure that he is aware of that himself.
Surely it will not be suggested that a turnstile, as distinct from another means of entry, is essential for the provision of privacy, decency and cleanliness. Indeed, it may well militate against cleanliness. It cannot possibly be maintained that without a turnstile one cannot make sure that the place is clean and decent. The Parliamentary Secretary got nowhere on that line of argument.
Moreover, there was one course of action about which he was weaker than he need have been. He said that the

right hon. Gentleman would ask local authorities not to erect turnstiles, pending the discussions which are to be held. But why the weak word "ask"? The Parliamentary Secretary himself pointed out that loan sanction was needed. Why should not the Minister say that he would not grant loan sanction?

Sir K. Joseph: I will give the answer straight away. Pending the results of this survey, my right hon. Friend will not give loan sanction for any public convenience scheme involving turnstiles. I did not say that before, because the hon. Member could legitimately have said that some local authorities might spend their own money, in which case they would not need loan sanction. That is why I used the word "ask", but I include refusal to grant loan sanctions pending the result of the inquiry.

Mr. Stewart: That is a valuable addition and it makes me feel that I have not lived in vain, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) must be feeling this morning.
We now have both things. If the authorities try to do it in a way which needs loan sanction, they will be flatly told, "No." If they try to do it in a way which does not need loan sanction, they will be asked not to do so. As an immediate administrative action that is satisfactory. But, in view of some of the things said from the Government Front Bench this week, whether any local authority will be erecting anything in the course of the next eight months is another matter.
It was the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth who said that the hon. Gentleman's rather weak answer did not go as far as she wanted. There were three courses of action which could have been taken more quickly than that which the Parliamentary Secretary proposes. He could have told the Committee that he would accept the new Clause. He could have told us that the Government would provide facilities for securing the passage of the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). Or he could have followed the suggestion, originally made by his hon. Friend, and said that a measure of this kind would be mentioned in the Queen's Speech. I find


it disturbing that none of those three things has appealed to him.

Mrs. Castle: In all sincerity, I say that I appreciate the spirit in which the Parliamentary Secretary spoke. It is clear that this debate has made an impact on him, and we hope that it will have left an indelible impression. However, it is not his motive but his method which I am querying, and I must say that I am profoundly disturbed.
Surely it is clear that we have all heard the other side of the case. The only argument in favour of the installation of turnstiles is that it saves money on the rates. Women are prevented from evading the impost of a penny by holding the door open for someone else—let us be crude about it—from holding open the door while two or three young toddlers go into the lavatory with their mother. Everyone now has to go through the turnstiles, and that is the openly avowed reason why local authorities have put them up. The wages of an attendant are also saved. But I repeat that that is violating the very principle which the Minister says he wants to secure.
It is intolerable for us to have to wait another moment to hear the other side of the case. This is a matter of principle which should be decided this morning and the question is which argument is paramount—the health and well-being of the women, or a small saving on the rates. That is what it boils down to when the Minister has made all his inquiries. I accept that he will treat the matter as urgent, but, however urgently it is treated, it will take until the end of the year before everybody has met and all the evidence has been collected, and so on. The Minister may then give local authorities guidance, which is all he can do unless he accepts the Clause or my Bill, whose purposes are to give him the power which he does not now have.
I appreciate that the Minister will refuse loan sanction and will accompany that refusal with a request, but beyond a certain point he is powerless, and mean. avaricious local authorities, callous and hardhearted, can get away with that. It is the callous bumbledom which we are trying to fight. It is not true that local authorities are not aware of the problem.

My letters show that they have had representations time and again from local women's organisations and have turned a deaf ear to them. That being so, this morning we have a golden opportunity to give the Minister the power without which we cannot do this job.
12.45 p.m.
The good local authorities which want to respond will meet the argument that they should not take action when the authority down the road or across the river ignores the Minister's plea. Universality of action is what is needed, and the only way to ensure that we get it is to give the Minister power he does not now have. The Parliamentary Secretary wants us to wait until be has collected evidence and heard the other side of the case. We should not waste a moment on that. Secondly, when he has tried his powers of persuasion and they have failed, 'he will introduce legislation.
There will then be a period of twelve months following that legislation for local authorities to be given time to pull these obstacles down. It is because it is urgent that I am not prepared for the new Clause to be withdrawn—and my name appears in support of it. I do not say that in any spirit of hostility to the Parliamentary Secretary, but in an overriding spirit of urgency.

Dame Irene Ward: Will the Parliamentary Secretary clear up one point about legislation? He does not need to mention the Queen's Speech. He said that if the local authorities do not respond, he will introduce legislation, or accept the Bill of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), who will not have time to get in on the Statute Book before the House rises, so that there will be legislation if the local authorities are obstinate. It would make the position clear if he would finalise what he said.

Sir K. Joseph: I hope that when the hon. Lady reads HANSARD she will find that I said just that. But I will repeat it. There are likely to be four stages. First, there will be inquiry and consultation. Secondly, my right hon. Friend will assess the position. Thirdly, if he decides that some action is necessary, he will seek the co-operation of the local authorities. Fourthly, if he does not get that cooperation—and that assumes that that co-operation will he within a time limit


—I undertake that he will see to it that there is legislation.

Mr. James MacColl: I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary is not intentionally misleading the Committee about what he said. As I understand, it is only if he is satisfied that there is a case for abolition that he gives the pledge to introduce legislation. The whole point of his thesis was that he must hear the other side before making up his mind. It should be quite clear that he is not giving a firm pledge to the Committee.

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Member has stated the position correctly.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), considered.

Clause 39.—(EXCLUSION OF CHILDREN FROM PLACES OF ENTERTAINMENT OR ASSEMBLY.)

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): I beg to move, in page 30, line 16, to leave out from "theatre" to "and" in line 17 and to insert
including a cinematograph theatre, and any building used as a public hall, public concert-room or lecture room, public dance room or public gymnasium or indoor swimming baths.

Mrs. McLaughlin: In view of what my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said clarifying his previous statement, that there will be further consideration of this matter and that action will be taken, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Hon. Members: No.

The Deputy-Chairman: Permission is not granted.

Question put, That the Clause be Dead a Second time.

The Committee divided: Ayes 22, Noes 66.

Division No. 262.]
AYES
[12.50 p.m.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lawson, George
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lipton, Marcus
Stross, Dr. Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Fletcher, Eric
MacColl, James
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Grimond, J.
Marsh, Richard
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mitchison, G. R.



Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Oram, A. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Paget, R. T.
Mrs. Barbara Castle and


Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Robinson, Kenneth (St.Pancras.N.)
Mr. Fenner Brockway,


King, Dr. Horace
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank





NOES


Aithen, W. T.
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Prior, J. M. L.


Allason, James
Jackson, John
Pym, Francis


Barber, Anthony
James, David
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Bingham, R. M.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bishop, F. P.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Roots, William


Bossom, Clive
Kirk, Peter
Sharpies, Richard


Boyle, Sir Edward
Leburn, Gilmour
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Bryan, Paul
Litchfield, Capt. John
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswlck)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Longden, Gilbert
Smithers, Peter


Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
McAdden, Stephen
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
McLaren, Martin
Studholme, Sir Henry


Channon, H. P. G.
Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromiey)
Turner, Colin


Cooke, Robert
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Corfield, F. V.
Maddan, Martin
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Dance, James
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. c.
Wise, A. R.


Drayson, G. B.
Mills, Stratton
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Morgan, William
Woodnutt, Mark


Errington, Sir Eric
Noble, Michael
Worsley, Marcus


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Page, John (Harrow, West)



Green, Alan
Pitman, Sir James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hobson, John
Pitt, Miss Edith
Mr. Whitelaw and Mr. Peel.

This Amendment arises out of a promise that I gave during the Committee stage of the Bill further to consider the wording by which we wished to define those places where children assemble in numbers and where there might be some risk of infection. During the course of our discussions in Committee upstairs, the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) asked me to say precisely what my Department wished to exclude in the matter of these public places.

On giving the consideration which I promised, I feel that it is wiser to say


exactly what we wish to include as the places where such a risk arises. The words in the Amendment cover the advice given to me by the medical advisers of my Department of places where a risk of infection is likely to arise. That being so, I hope that the amended wording will be satisfactory to the House and that the Amendment will be accepted.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for the consideration she gave to the Amendment we moved in Committee. I think that she will now agree that the original wording was rather defective. It is probably the happiest solution to spell out the precise places to which this potential prohibition should supply. We support the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 45.—(FORECOURTS ABUTTING ON STREETS.)

1.0 p.m.

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 34, line 46, at the end to insert:
or under subsection (2) of this section to give a notice applying to anything erected in conformity with planning permission granted on an application under Part III of that Act".
I had thought that the Amendment in line 22, to leave out Clause 45, in the name of the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) was to be taken with this one, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I should make it clear to the House that the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) has not been selected.

Sir K. Joseph: The Amendment refers to subsection (2), which gives a local authority power to require the suppression of any development in a forecourt which is injurious to amenity. On reflection, it has been thought that such a development may have had planning permission, and it would be unfair to the recipient of that permission—and we are bound to assume that in giving it the amenity arguments would have been taken into account—for the local authority then to come along in another hat, or for another local authority to come along, and require the removal of the

development which has already been given planning permission. It is to avoid that danger that the Amendment is moved.

Mr. A. E. Hunter: The question was raised with me and I put down my Amendment so that it could be discussed by the Committee. The Government Amendment fully covers the points that I wished to raise.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 74.—(BYELAWS AS TO PLEASURE FAIRS AND ROLLER SKATING RINKS.)

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 56, to leave out lines 2 to 6.
For this Amendment the Government are grateful for the argument put forward in Committee by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), who pointed out that by exempting entertainments that are covered at the moment by paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection (4) we might inadvertently increase marginally the danger of, for instance, fire in certain otherwise completely innocent forms of entertainment. The Government feel that there is a strong argument for the hon. Member's point of view, and consequently propose the elimination of the exemption given in those paragraphs.
It is arguable that the exemption will leave open to byelaw control only such activities—using a very broad phrase—which include an entertainment such as is described in subsection (3). For those promoters such as churches and other charitable bodies who promote this sort of activity, I offer the comfort that the byelaws will normally deal only with such commonsense provisions as making sure that there are enough portable fire extinguishers, and enough lavatories available if the activity is going on outdoors—just those things that common sense and decency would cause any well-conducted organisation to provide normally without any byelaw requirements. I hope that the Committee will find the Amendment acceptable.

Mr. M. Stewart: We are very glad that the Government have taken the point, and we are grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for having moved the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

1.6 p.m.

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
After the very full discussion that we have had on Second Reading and in Committee I do not think that there is any need for me to do any more than say three thin2s. First, a number of useful although not startling Amendments have been made Ito the Bill in Committee, and my right hon. Friend wishes to thank all hon. Members who, by their meticulous attention to detail in connection with such a wide range of subjects as are covered in the Bill, have enabled it to emerge improved.
Secondly, the House should take this opportunity to pay tribute to those hon. Members Who carry out, year by year, the relatively thankless but arduous and detailed work on the Committees on Opposed and Unopposed Private Bills. The House rarely has an opportunity to acknowledge this work, and I hope that it will not be thought presumptuous if I use this occasion to pay tribute to all the hon. Members concerned, to the Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means, who presides over all the sittings of the Committee on Unopposed Bills and the Chairman of Ways and Means, who carried that burden before him, as well as to their opposite numbers in another place.
Thirdly, the Bill will be removing forty-one examples of their handiwork, by taking forty-one model clauses and converting them, in one form or another, into general powers to be given to local authorities. That is some evidence of the work of those Committees, and also of the valuable job that the Bill does.

1.8 p.m.

Mr. MacColl: I do not want to detain the House for very long. I merely wish to express my view that this is a good and valuable Bill, and, repeating what my hon. Friend said in special reference to the question of clearing dirty sites, to express the hope that the Government will take steps to see that the contents of the Bill are brought to the attention of local authorities, so that they are aware of the valuable new powers which are being given to them.
The Government have been conciliatory in considering many proposals on their merits, and accepting many valuable suggestions. I hope that the

Parliamentary Secretary will have learned the lesson that my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) always—and the rest of us quite often says things which are intelligent and constructive and should be accepted. I hope that he will take back to his Department the point pressed in Committee about the urgency of getting on with the job of preparing a new building code. He did not mention that side of the Bill in his remarks just now, but the view was put forward from both sides of the Committee that we hoped that there would not be a long delay while the code was being prepared. It is something which requires a good deal of activity.
We welcome and support the Bill. I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for having steered us through, comparatively amicably, with one or two exceptions, to a safe port at the end.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

SUICIDE BILL [Lords]

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

1.10 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This Bill has been universally welcomed and yet practically unnoticed, perhaps because it was universally welcomed. It is a fundamental Measure in that it removes the stigma of a crime and of criminal proceedings for attempted suicide, and thus changes a very ancient law.
It is not for me at this stage, and for a third time, to extol the merits of the Bill. I repeat the word of warning which I gave during the Second Reading debate, and during the Committee stage proceedings. Because we have taken the view, as Parliament and the Government have taken, that the treatment of people who attempt to commit suicide should no longer be through the criminal courts, it in no way lessens, nor should it lessen, the respect for the sanctity of human life which we all share. It must not be


thought that because we are changing the method of treatment for those unfortunate people we seek to depreciate the gravity of the action of anyone who tries to commit suicide.
One of the consequences of removing from the ambit of the criminal law this hitherto crime of attempted suicide is that it may be feared that some people may not be reached through the Mental Health Act; that there will be some who will not submit themselves to voluntary treatment, and cannot be persuaded by then medical advisers or members of their family to receive treatment. It may be apprehended that some gap in the welfare of the country may follow from that.
We would all agree that it would be quite wrong either to keep the present criminal structure or to impose a new one purely for what we believe to be a very small minority. But we shall watch the situation and the Government will keep an open mind. We will see whether that small number increases and if a proposal not involving the odour of criminality is put forward to meet the situation, we shall certainly look at it again.

1.12 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I wish to support what the Minister has said. The hon. and learned Gentleman drew attention to the fact that, although this is an important Bill which makes a significant change in the law, it appears to have passed through Parliament practically unnoticed. That may be partly due to the fact that, owing to the vicissitudes of the Parliamentary time-table, it has come up for consideration in this House either late at night or on a Friday afternoon. But we are all very glad that now it is about to reach the Statute Book.
We should also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson). It is very largely as a result of his pertinacity and persuasion over the years that the Government were prodded sufficiently to introduce this legislation. We all welcome this change in the law. It has been repugnant to a great many people for a long time that the machinery of the criminal law should be called into operation in order to deal with people who attempt to commit suicide. They need

a great deal of help and medical attention as well as perhaps spiritual guidance and advice of other kinds. But no one would seriously suggest that there is a need for the police to intervene.
May I also endorse what the Minister said, that it would be a travesty were it thought that by passing this Bill, removing suicide and attempted suicide from the criminal code, we were in any sense attempting to lessen the sanctity of human life. Suicide will still remain a mortal sin. This Measure should not in any sense be interpreted as an encouragement to people who wish to commit suicide and, of course, by the provisions of Clause 2 it still remains a criminal offence to advise or counsel anybody to commit suicide.
It is a matter of public importance to ensure, after this Bill is passed, that those unfortunate people who either make unsuccessful attempts to commit suicide or who are minded to do so shall have access to the treatment, whether medical or otherwise, that their mental condition calls for. I hope that, as a result of what was said during the Second Reading debate and during the Committee stage proceedings, we may be assured that where these cases come to the notice of hospital authorities or doctors in general practice, steps will be taken as a matter of course to ensure that they are referred either for psychiatric treatment or for guidance from some voluntary society which specialises in this work; so that in future such people may obtain the assistance and guidance which their condition requires. I commend the Bill to the House as the Minister has already done.

1.17 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) for his kind references to the efforts which I have made over, I think, four Parliamentary Sessions to bring about this reform. I freely admit that during that time many far more important voices than mine have been added to the pleas to the Home Secretary to make action in this matter. With this Measure we shall end a law which the Whole House now recognises as having been cruel and uncivilised. We are glad to see it brought to an end.
This subject comes into the category of what one might call social controversial legislation. I think that it was for that reason that this reform was resisted by the Home Secretary in the earlier stages. Matters which come within this category always are met with timidity on the part of Governments of all colours. Governments tend to overestimate the opposition to reform, particularly when the matters involve religious aspects or, indeed, sexual aspects. Despite all the fears expressed by the Home Secretary some years ago, this Bill has passed through all its stages in a period of rather less than three hours. It has not met with any objection from any quarter.
I hope that the Home Secretary will not lose sight of the moral of this. There are other reforms which are equally urgent in the category Which I have described. Possibly the right hon. Gentleman may reflect on the ease with which the Bill has been secured when considering such matters as the Wolfenden Committee's recommendations on homosexuality and the question of therapeutic abortion—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order.

Mr. Robinson: —and conclude that the opposition may not be as great as he might imagine.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am glad that the hon. Member has finished.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

LICENSING BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 2.—(GRANT AND RENEWAL DI. LICENCES FOR RESTAURANTS, GUEST HOUSES, ETC.)

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 35, at end insert:
or
(c) in the case of any such licence, because the contemplated provision of intoxicants would be by 'self-service' methods, that is to say, any method allowing a customer to help himself on payment or before payment.

1.20 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment allows licensing justices to refuse an application for the grant or renewal of a Part I licence on the ground that the sale or supply of intoxicating liquor on the premises is undesirable because the liquor would be provided by self-service methods. There are obviously serious objections, which I will not elaborate, to self-service methods in respect of liquor. The Amendment seeks to deal with them. It does not allow licensing justices to refuse an application on the ground that the food is supplied by self-service methods. Thus, the Amendment will not affect a self-service restaurant where the liquor is dispensed to customers by one of the staff.
The Amendment gives licensing justices a discretion. They are to refuse an application only if the self-service methods make undesirable the sale or supply of intoxicating liquor on the premises. It is obvious what the objections to self-service methods for the supply of liquor are. The proprietor—the person in control, the licensee—cannot ensure that young or drunken persons are not served. He cannot, in a restaurant, ensure that only persons taking table meals consume liquor. For all these reasons I hope that the House will agree that this is a safeguard which should be included in the Bill and will, therefore, agree to the Amendment.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I welcome the Amendment. It is in line with a number of Amendments which


we pressed on the Government in Committee. It adds one further very desirable safeguard.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 38, at end insert:
(4) If on an application for the grant or renewal for any premises of a restaurant licence, residential licence or residential and restaurant licence it is made to appear to the licensing justices on behalf of any such authority as is mentioned below in this sub-section—

(a) that the authority or an officer designated in that behalf by the authority desired in connection with the application to have the premises inspected for purposes of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) above; and
(b) that after reasonable steps had been taken by or on behalf of the authority or officer for the purpose it was not possible to have the premises so inspected;

the licensing justices may refuse the application.
The authorities above referred to are—

(i) (according to the situation of the premises) the Common Council of the City of London or the council of the county borough, metropolitan borough or county district; and
(ii) the authority (if not included in paragraph (i) above) discharging in the area where the premises are situated the functions of fire authority under the Fire Services Act, 1947; and
(iii) the chief officer of police for the police area where the premises are situated.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Jocelyn Simon): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The background to the Amendment is this. In the debate in this House on what is now Clause 28, which gives fire authorities certain rights of inspection in connection with an application by a club for a registration certificate, the question was raised, I think by both the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) and by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), whether fire authorities would have similar rights to inspect premises in respect of which an application was being made for a justices' licence and whether the justices would have power to refuse an application on the grounds of fire risk.
I took the opportunity then to review the provisions of the Bill generally in relation to that question. I pointed out that in the case of licensed premises the licensing justices have a wide discretion

to refuse the grant of a licence and that under what is now paragraph 2 (5) of the Fourth Schedule notice of the application for a new licence had to be sent to the fire authorities, among others. I indicated my view, which, I think, was acceptable to the House, that it would be unthinkable that licensing justices would exercise their discretion to grant a licence where inspection had been refused to the fire authority, or indeed to any other inspecting authority.
I pointed out that, in the case of Part I licences, there is not a complete discretion on the part of the licensing justices. I therefore said that my right hon. Friend would consider whether an Amendment should be moved in another place to enable licensing justices, when considering the grant of a Part I licence, to take into account whether inspection had been refused. On consideration, my right hon. Friend thought it right to meet that point and to fill in that lacuna. The Amendment fulfils that undertaking.

Sir Frank Soskice: The Amendment seems to me to make a distinct improvement in the Bill. I hope that the House will agree with it. The question was raised and discussed in some detail in Committee, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said. Indeed, the Amendment follows very closely the lines of a suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher).

The Solicitor-General: I should have pointed out that it does follow a suggestion made by the hon. Member for Islington, East. I should have paid a tribute to the hon. Member. I should also have pointed out that it goes a little beyond it, because it extends to a police authority and a local authority.

Sir F. Soskice: I hope that the Solicitor-General will not think that I am speaking in any sense of complaint on behalf of my hon. Friend. It is the combined effort of Government thinking and thinking from the Opposition benches. It undoubtedly improves the Bill. It would obviously be unreasonable that the authorities should be deprived of any power in the event of a refusal of the facilities which the Bill provides for. I thank the Solicitor-General for introducing the Amendment and I hope that the House will accept it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5.—(PERMITTED HOURS FOR LICENSED PREMISES AND CLUBS GENERALLY.)

Lords Amendment: In page 10, leave out lines 4 to 8.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The effect of this Amendment and the one to follow is to make the provision about off-licence hours a separate subsection of Clause 5. Their purpose is to provide some flexibility as regards the bringing of the Act into operation by Order of the Secretary of State under Clause 32 (5). It is contemplated that different provisions will be brought into force on different dates. The Amendments make the provision about off-licence hours a separate provision so that it could, if this course should seem expedient, be brought into force in advance of the general provision about permitted hours in licensed premises contained in subsection (1). At present, the provision about off-licence hours operates as a proviso to subsection (1). Without the Amendments it would be necessary to carry out the rather awkward exercise of bringing the proviso into force before the main provision on which it is to operate.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell us a little more about the programming of bringing these different parts into effect? I appreciate that the reason here is that it may be desirable to bring part into effect at one time and part into effect at another time. It is of the greatest importance to the country generally to know when these different parts will come into effect. If my right hon. and learned Friend does not wish to answer this question now, will he be able to answer it on another Amendment, so that we shall have an answer today?
It is of particular importance to know, for example, whether the clubs parts as they affect this will come into effect now and, if so, how he will be able to manage that without the difficulty of having to wait for the permitted hours and other provisions to come into operation, which, presumably, will be during the brewster sessions. Can my right hon. and learned Friend give us some guidance on this topic and, with the per-

mission of the Chair, on a rather wider basis than just this Amendment?

1.30 p.m.

The Secretary for Technical Cooperation (Mr. Dennis Vosper): So much depends upon the passage of this Bill that we have been rather reluctant to put forward a programme for bringing into operation its various parts. It would, for instance, make a great deal of difference whether the Bill goes on the Statute Book before the end of this month or later in the year.
For that reason, I have always avoided making any forecast or putting forward a programme for bringing into action the various parts of the Bill, and even at this stage I am a little reluctant to commit myself. I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said. Many of those in the trade and the authorities are anxious to know about this. I do not know whether it is possible to make a statement about it on any further Amendment, but I note what my hon. Friend says, and in some way or another I will ensure that in the very near future a statement to that effect is made.
It is our intention to bring the various parts into operation on different dates, and no delay will be caused on that account. The reason for the different dates is that in certain cases consultations will be necessary, but we see no reason to delay the other parts of the Bill on that account. My hon. Friend will remember that in the case of the Betting and Gaming Act we adopted the same procedure, and various parts came into operation in October last year. I suggest that roughly the same procedure is followed here. I will take note of my hon. Friend's point and see whether a statement can be made or notice issued to meet his request.

Mr. Rees-Davies: May we take it that the position is that the whole Bill will certainly not come into effect later than the brewster sessions of next year? Would it be safe to say that the last date for the entire Bill to come into effect will be the normal brewster sessions period of next year?

Mr. Vosper: I have for the moment passed this responsibility to others, and I hate to give off-the-cuff answers, but I see no reason why the whole Bill should not come into operation by the next brewster sessions.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: All we are doing here is transposing words which appear in this proviso to a subsection on their own, and the reason for that is that the Government might find presently that they wish to bring this Measure in piecemeal; at any rate, this section. It seems to me, from what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, that negotiations will have to take place, and, for that reason, the Bill, as a whole, or the Act as it will be, will not be ready to be implemented on one and the same date. Why not wait until they are ready?
What is the hurry? We are getting on very well under the present licensing laws. It seems to me rather curious to bring in a Measure piecemeal, and not only that, but to bring in, as I understand it, possibly part of the section dealing with permitted hours and at a later date other parts of the section also dealing with permitted hours. For that reason, I am not objecting to the change, because as a change it makes for tidiness, but the reason given strikes me as peculiar, and I am sorry that the Government have it in mind.

The Solicitor-General: I hope that I may be able to clarify and expand what my right hon. Friend has said. The intention, as at present envisaged, is that the permitted hours provisions will be brought in before the next brewster sessions; that is to say, next February or March. The provisions as to off-licence hours may be brought in earlier. The provisions as to clubs will probably be later in order to give the clubs enough time to adjust themselves to the new procedure. The other parts will be brought in as soon as possible.
If it is any comfort to the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall), I would ask him to bear in mind that certain of these provisions, for example, sales to juveniles and young persons from off-licence premises, are restrictive and in the direction which he wants to see the law take. Therefore, I should have thought that he would have welcomed their implementation at the very earliest date.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 11, after "three", to insert "and a half".

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment relates to permitted hours in registered clubs, and it is therefore consequential on an Amendment which was accepted on Report stage in this House which made the Sunday closing hour 10.30 p.m. instead of 10 o'clock, and thereby gave licenced premises three and a half hours in the evening. The permitted hours in club premises are governed by Clause 5 (7), and under the provisions of that Clause as it stands, clubs will have the same total, that is 5½ hours, of permitted hours on Sundays as licenced premises, but will be able to have no more than three hours in the evening, compared with 3½ hours, in licenced premises.
There is no conceivable reason for restricting the choice of hours in clubs in that way. Indeed, the policy of the Bill and of all earlier legislation is to allow clubs to have the same hours as licenced premises, if they choose, and to allow the clubs to choose their hours, within limits. This Amendment gives effect to that policy and amends Clause 5 (7) to bring it into line with the provisions of Clause 5 (1, b).

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7.—(OPERATION OF PROVISIONS AS TO PERMITTED HOURS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 17, line 8, after "1953" insert:
or section seven of the Licensing (Seamen's Canteens) Act, 1954".

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It might be for the convenience of the House if we discussed this Amendment with the Amendment in page 17, line 10, and the Amendment to the Ninth Schedule, in page 76, line 41, col. 3.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that will be convenient.

The Solicitor-General: Clause 7 (5) increases from £30 to £100 the fine for an offence against Section 100 of the Licensing Act, 1953, and that is the Section relating to breaches of permitted hours. The penalty for such an offence committed in a seamen's canteen is fixed by Section 7 (6) of the Licensing (Seamen's Canteens) Act, 1954, and is £30;


in other words, the same as we find in the 1953 Act. It is obviously right that these offences should continue to carry the same penalty, and the House indicated clearly that, in the wider provisions of the 1953 Act, it thought that the penalty should be £100. It was by an oversight that the Bill did not operate on Section 7 (6) of the 1954 Act, which relates to seamen's canteens, and this Amendment corrects this by repealing Section 7 (6) and applying the new penalty to offences committed in seamen's canteens.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8.—(SPECIAL HOURS CERTIFICATES FOR PREMISES PROVIDING MUSIC AND DANCING.)

Lords Amendment: In page 18, line 45, leave out "and Good Friday" and insert:
but nothing in that section shall affect the permitted hours on Good Friday or shall extend beyond midnight the permitted hours on Maundy Thursday or Easter Eve.

Read a Second tune.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Does the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) wish to move his Amendment to this Lords Amendment?

Mr. Fletcher: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if that would be convenient to you and to the House.
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, to leave out "or Easter" and to insert: "Easter Eve or Christmas".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Would it be convenient for the House also to take the next Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, East, in the second Lords Amendment in page 19, line 17, in subsection (1, c) to leave out "or Easter" and to insert "Easter Eve or Christmas"?

Mr. Fletcher: I am not quite so happy about that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Then we shall take just the one Amendment.

Mr. Fletcher: It may be that, when we come to my second Amendment, what we have said on the Amendment I have

moved may render it unnecessary to have further debate on the second Lords Amendment in page 19, line 17, which introduces the new Clause A, but I myself should prefer to postpone any debate on my Amendment to that new Clause A until I had heard what the Solicitor-General had to say about the new Clause A, which, after all, is a very long one. I had expected that we should hear an explanation about the Lords Amendment in page 18, line 45, before my Amendment to it was called, but, as we have not, I shall explain the position as I understand it.
When the Bill was before us in Committee, we had a good deal of discussion about whether it was reasonable that the provisions of the Bill with regard to special hours certificates—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that I could meet the convenience of the House if it were desired that the Solicitor-General should speak on the hon. Member's Amendment. That would be quite possible within the rules of order.

Mr. Fletcher: All I was saying, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, was that, to explain the Amendment I have moved, I should preface my remarks by indicating what the Lords Amendment itself does. I think that that would be convenient and, indeed, I think it would help my case.

Mr. Ede: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. How can we discuss an Amendment to something which is not in the Bill and which is not before the House? I should have thought that the most convenient procedure, if not the proper procedure—I say the "most convenient procedure" because I do not wish to cast reflections on anyone—would be for the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General, or the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Vosper) —whose Ministry I forget because it is so newly established that one cannot recite its name by heart—to explain what another place has suggested should go into the Bill. I gather that, for some reason or other, that does not satisfy the desire of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher). However, if we know from the right hon. Member for Runcorn what the explanation of the Lords Amendment is, we may then be better able to understand why so intelligent a person as my hon.


Friend the Member for Islington, East does not like it.

1.45 p.m.

Mr. Fletcher: The two matters hang together. I think it might be convenient if I explained what my Amendment is designed to do.
The background is that, on Report, we had considerable argument about whether or not the extended hours certificate should apply to Sundays. If I remember aright, we had a Division about it. The position with regard to Sundays was left in a very unsatisfactory state, and the matter was again ventilated at length in another place, with the result that their Lordships made an Amendment the effect of which is to preserve the provisions in the Bill with regard to an extended hours certificate for Sundays but to make an exception in respect of Good Friday, Maundy Thursday and Easter Eve. The object of my Amendment is that those days which are now to be excepted should be extended to cover Christmas Eve.
It was said in another place that, by agreeing to treat Good Friday and the eve of Easter Day as days of exceptional importance and sanctity in the religious and social life of the country, the Government were making a compromise. But, of course, that is not really so. The compromise in the Bill as it stands, if the Lords Amendment be accepted, is that Sundays should in future be treated as ordinary days of the week, which they are not at present, but there will be the special exemptions for Maundy Thursday, Good Friday and Easter Eve.
My suggestion is that, as a matter of logic and of common sense, the arguments which justify those exceptions should apply equally to Christmas. I say that for three reasons. If we turn to the provisions in the Bill dealing with permitted hours generally, we find in several places that for various purposes Christmas Day is put on precisely the same footing as Good Friday. For instance, in Clause 5 (1) the provisions for ordinary licensing hours in the country on weekdays are constant but there is an express exception if a weekday should be Christmas Day or Good Friday.
In Clause 5 (1, b) we again find that Christmas Day and Good Friday are put

in the same category as Sunday in respect of afternoon closing hours. We find the same in Clause 5 (7). I think it true to say that elsewhere, not only in the Bill but for several other purposes, Christmas Day is regarded as falling into the same category as Good Friday. They are both Bank Holidays but they are essentially religious holidays or Bank Holidays associated with religious festivals unlike August Bank Holiday or New Year's Day, which is a Bank Holiday in Scotland, which have no religious significance of any kind.
On grounds of logic, I submit that we should be consistent. We ought to recognise the special features of Christmas Day in the religious and social life of the country. We ought not to enable justices to grant special hours certificates permitting not only restaurants but other licensed premises to serve intoxicating liquor until three o'clock in London and two o'clock in the provinces, with, of course, the additional half-hour permitted in both cases.
I cannot believe that there is any great demand for such licences on Christmas Day, that is, after midnight on Christmas Eve. I should have thought that the case for making an exception in respect of Christmas Eve was even stronger than the case which has been recognised by the Government in respect of Easter Eve. Christmas Day and the eve of Christmas are essentially the one time of the year—the one evening of the year—when most people wish to congregate in the family home. Most people try to get home as early as possible on Christmas Eve. There are the familiar family duties associated with children and relatives to be carried out. Christmas is essentially a family feast to be spent in the home.
I believe that there is very little demand from people wishing to go to restaurants and to stay until two or three o'clock or later on the morning of Christmas Day. If that were to become a recognised feature of our social life. I think that it would give the same kind of offence as is recognised would be the case if special hour certificates were available on Good Friday or the eve of Good Friday or Easter Eve.
There is this further consideration which I hope will appeal to the Minister. This argument is put forward not


entirely on religious grounds, although that I think it can be sustained on religious grounds. It can also be supported on grounds of general social convenience. It cannot be in the interests of those working in licensed premises or places of entertainment to require them to stay at work until the early hours of Christmas morning. If a change of that kind were made we should be doing something contrary to the general pattern of social arrangements which is now being contemplated.
There is already a great deal of support for the view that postmen should no longer be required to deliver mail on Christmas morning. Postmen are very busy during the period immediately before Christmas. The tendency is to get Christmas cards and Christmas mail delivered well in advance of Christmas. Some people hold the view—I strongly support this view, which is widely held —that it places an intolerable burden on postmen that they should have to deliver mail on Christmas morning. I hope that the suggestion that this practice should be stopped will soon he implemented by the Government. It is for that sort of reason that it seems to me equally undesirable that we should now for the first time sanction local authorities outside London to be able to grant special hours certificates for dancing and other entertainment and for the consumption of alcohol until the early hours of Christmas morning.
I have been reading what was said in another place about this matter. I was very disappointed with the remarks of the Lord Chancellor, who resisted what I regard as a very reasonable Amendment on what seemed to me to be very flimsy grounds. He recognised the general case which a number of noble Lords had urged in support of this Amendment, but he said that there were some young married people living in small flats or lodgings for whom it was necessary to provide this kind of entertainment in the early hours of Christmas Day.
I cannot believe that that is the case. Everyone knows that there are plenty of festivities immediately before Christmas and plenty of festivities in restaurants and elsewhere immediately after Christmas, including New Year's Day, which is essentially a pagan festival. It seems

to me that the Government would be responding to a widespread desire on the part of a large section of the community if they were to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Perhaps it would he of advantage at this stage if I replied to the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) as to why I have pursued this procedure. It is laid down on page 581 of Erskine May that an Amendment cannot be proposed to a Lords Amendment after the Question for agreeing to the Lords Amendment has been put from the Chair.

Mr. Vosper: The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) has moved the Amendment very reasonably, but I wonder whether he fully understands the background to this issue.
The matter raised by the hon. Member's Amendment and by the Government Amendment which I shall be asking the House to approve shortly arises out of the Licensing Act, 1949, which originated the special hours certificate, with which we are solely concerned at this stage. That Act made it clear that weekdays included Good Fridays and Christmas Days when they did not fall on a Sunday. A certain amount of ambiguity arose from the consolidation Act of 1953 and the declaratory provision contained in the Bill is simply inserted to clear up that ambiguity. It does not in any way alter the original provisions of the 1949 Act. It merely reaffirms that, as was then intended, weekdays do not exclude Christmas Days and Sundays for special hours certificate purposes.
It may well be that the hon. Member disagrees with that decision taken in 1949, but it was a clear decision and, as I shall show, it has been carried out in practice. The Bill does not alter that principle. It makes three changes. It proposes that in London the extension shall be until 3 a.m. and not 2 a.m.; it extends the existing provisions for London to the rest of the country; and it extends the provisions to Saturday nights, which were not included in the 1949 Act.
The original intention that Good Fridays and Christmas Days, when not falling on a Sunday, should be treated as weekdays remains from the 1949 provisions and that has been in this Bill from the day that it was introduced into


the House. To the best of my recollection, it was not questioned at any stage during its passage through this House.
As the hon. Member for Islington, East said, in another place the question arose as to whether Good Fridays and Christmas Days should be so included. As a result of the debates in another place, I shall shortly be asking the House to approve an Amendment excluding Good Friday and Easter Eve. The hon. Gentleman now wishes to extend the scope of the Amendment to Christmas Eve. In practice, over the last few years special hours certificates have been granted on Christmas Eve in accordance with the 1949 Act.

Mr. Fletcher: In London.

Mr. Vosper: The special hours certificate applies only in London. I cannot say that every one of the fifty-one establishments in London has taken advantage of that provision, but many of them have done so. The London County Council has issued the music and dancing licence which is necessary before a special hours certificate can operate.
Therefore, the practice at present is that the special hours certificate in London extends into the early hours of Christmas morning. Over and above that, for a great number of years, the Commissioner of Police in the Metropolis !and, no doubt, licensing justices throughout the country have granted special exemptions to places which do not qualify for a special hours certificate to allow the consumption of alcohol until 1 o'clock in the morning. Therefore, the practice over a number of years has been to allow public houses and restaurants to remain open after midnight on Christmas Eve. Therefore, the hon. Member in his Amendment asks the House to reverse something which has been the practice in the case of special hours certificates since 1949 and, in the case of special exemption orders, probably for a great deal longer. That is one of the reasons why my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor resisted this Amendment in another place.
2.0 p.m.
The position of Good Friday and the Saturday night before Easter Sunday, to put it that way for clarity, is somewhat

different. Theoretically, it has always been possible for special hours certificates to be granted on Good Friday, but the London County Council has never issued music and dancing licences for that day. Therefore, in contrast to Christmas Eve, it has not been the practice to allow a special hours certificate to be granted for Good Friday. In the case of the Saturday before Easter Sunday, that has not been possible because Saturday has been excluded hitherto from the operation of special hours certificates. Therefore, in accepting the two Amendments, one is not reversing what has hitherto been the practice but is preventing those two days —Good Friday and the Saturday before Easter Sunday—from becoming open in future to special hours certificates.
Therefore, in moving the Amendments which I shall move I am asking the House to reaffirm the existing procedure. The hon. Member for Islington East is asking us to put back the clock. He may well say that the Labour Government were wrong in 1949 in allowing special hours certificates to operate on Christmas Eve and that we should take a new decision. The hon. Member says that as these certificates will now be available to the rest of the country the case is made even stronger.

Mr. Fletcher: And the hours have been extended.

Mr. Vosper: Yes. But probably if one were to go on beyond midnight I do not think that the House would take the view that there is all that difference between 2 and 3 a.m. That is the view taken by the House earlier.
My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor was right in drawing as he did in another place, a difference between Christmas Eve and the other days under discussion. He argued that Christmas Eve was a traditional night for gaiety or celebration and that it was the practice of people in this country to celebrate on Christmas Eve. He drew attention to the ease of young married families who, possibly, could not celebrate in their own house. It was, I think, accepted in those debates that there was a difference between Christmas Eve, on the one hand, and Good Friday and the Saturday evening before Easter Sunday, on the other hand. Celebrations on Christmas Eve are a


tradition in this country and they have been permitted in practice both in the premises with special hours certificates and in countless places throughout the country by the ordinary extension of licensing hours. I do not feel that it would be in accord with public opinion that we should reverse that trend.
I advise the House this afternoon, with all respect to the hon. Member for Islington, East, that we should follow the practice of the last few years and allow these extensions to be granted, even though they will, of course, be extended to the rest of the country. We are, however, logical in asking the House also to endorse the Amendments sent from another place that we should exclude Good Friday and the evening before Easter Sunday. On those days, it would be a great pity if special hours certificates were granted, and that is the view of most thinking people. Therefore, although I do not go the whole way with the hon. Member, and although this issue was not raised when the matter was before the House earlier, we are going some way towards the view advanced by the hon. Member continually throughout the Bill.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The Secretary for Technical Co-operation has done himself less than justice. He was criticising something in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) which was not there. I am not clear from what the right hon. Gentleman said whether he intends, on behalf of the Government, to resist this Amendment submitted by another place. If he does not resist it, it seems to me that if he accepts the suggestions made in another place it would be only one further step to accepting Christmas Eve. All these feasts are religious feasts. The one which my hon. Friend and myself suggest including deals with the birth of Jesus and Easter deals with His death.

Mr. Tom Driberg: His resurrection.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am sorry. His death and resurrection.
That being so, in the minds of many hundreds of thousands of religious people both are special days. To those people, the day begins not at three

o'clock in the morning, but at midnight. That has been recognised in the law for some time. All that the Bill does—it provides the peg upon which this Amendment from another place has been hung—is to make the Saturday night the same as any other day.
The right hon. Gentleman was quite wrong at various times in Committee and on Report. Criticism was made of the fact that the law was about to be altered to make early Sunday morning the same as any other day. We objected to that even if we did not in terms deal with what was done in the 1949 Act. Therefore, for the right hon. Gentleman to concentrate much of his speech on the 1949 Act is beside the point.

Mr. Vosper: What we are now discussing arises directly from the 1949 Act. The question of whether we should have an extension into the early hours of Sunday morning arises out of something which is contained in the Bill as a new proposal. I agree that we discussed that at earlier stages, but we did not discuss what we are now discussing, that the 1949 Act was wrong in allowing extension into the early hours of Christmas morning.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am grateful for that intervention. It underlines, however, what I was trying to say, perhaps badly. We are dealing here with the suggestion that certain feast days during the year should be dealt with separately under the licensing laws. In another place, their Lordships thought fit to insert this Amendment. I am not clear whether the right hon. Gentleman will accept it. If he does, it seems to me common sense to include Christmas Eve.
As the right hon. Gentleman and those associated with us in Committee know very well, I am in favour of stopping drinking at midnight on a Saturday night for quite a number of reasons which to me at least are valid. One is that to continue drinking until three o'clock creates noise and nuisance to neighbours in the vicinity of a public house or restaurant which is unfair to them. It keeps staff busy, perhaps, until five o'clock in the morning in many instances and it gives them no chance of treating the Sunday as it should be treated. In every respect, we thought that the present general law that places selling intoxicants should close at midnight on a


Saturday was a right and proper thing to do.
It is true that under the 1949 Act, special arrangements can be made, but they are not universal. Up to now, they have been principally, if not almost entirely, confined to London. Under the Bill, they will be extended to the whole country, with dire results, as some of us pointed out during earlier stages of the Bill, to the life of the community in small towns and even villages. This we thought grossly unfair.
We cannot undo that, but what we can do, if the House is so minded, is to extend what another place in its wisdom seeks to put into the Bill by associating Christmas Eve with Good Friday and Maundy Thursday. I hope very much that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accepting this small but useful Amendment.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I will be brief. I think that the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) entirely misconceived the whole of the Amendment for Christmas Eve. For the past twelve years, it has been the tradition to be able to have a party on Christmas Eve. It is a festive occasion before a festive religious event. I must, however, point out that throughout the whole of our tourist centres, very large numbers of people spend their Christmas in the hotels by the seaside. Towns like Torquay, Bournemouth, Margate and Ramsgate are all packed with a large number of people who regard it as an additional short holiday. They all expect to stay up, and have for years past been staying up, on a proper feasting and wining on Christmas Eve.
I speak, I am certain, for the whole of my constituents and all the workers in the trade there when I say that it is an integral part of their life that they want to be able to be of service to the community on Christmas Eve. All that this now does is to reinforce the law and enable it to operate under this provision without people having to go to the justices for special licences, as they have to do today. I hope that in those circumstances the hon. Member will not feel it necessary to press his Amendment. The whole of the hotel and tourist industry certainly want this, and they certainly want it for Christmas Eve.
The whole of the employees and staff without, I think, a single dissentient, are anxious to do it. It must be remembered that those who are waiters and engaged in catering expect to serve the community at certain particular times of the year at very late hours.
I do not want to go into the rights and wrongs of postmen, although it will be over my dead body if postmen do not deliver on Christmas morning. It will upset me very much indeed and I shall have a proper showdown if they try not to do it, because I think that it is part of the service for postmen to be of service to the community on Christmas Day, just as it is part of other people's service to have to serve on special days. So the caterers of this country serve us on Christmas Day in the hotels for very long hours and on certain other festive occasions. Christmas Eve is one of them.
I would say one word on the Amendment to the Lords Amendment. I think that everyone, however robust his views may be, accepts the case for Maundy Thursday, that is, the eve before Good Friday, because Good Friday is a holy day. I accept that entirely, but I should like to amend the words in the Amendment in respect of Easter Eve, that is, the Saturday night before Easter Day, because I think that is more directly analogous to Christmas Day. I should have been delighted to see it.
I do not know whether it is too late to seek to submit a manuscript Amendment to leave out "Easter Eve", but I should have left out "Easter Eve" and if the Government had come to the conclusion that the proper balance was to include Maundy Thursday but not Easter Day that would have met my wishes. No doubt if my hon. Friend felt that Easter Eve was really in line with Christmas Eve, and were willing to do it, and if he were then to ask the Chair if he himself was able to amend his own Amendment, the Chairman might be able to say that he had power to do so.
I think that the only valid argument of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) was when he said that in logic we cannot exclude Christmas Eve and include Easter Eve. That is logical, but as it was based on a fallacious argument that we should exclude Christmas Eve, it


does not do very much to say that two wrongs make a right in his favour.
If we exclude part of the Government's Amendment—Easter Eve—I hope that they will do it, because we shall come to this later—and all of us agree that Good Friday should be so treated, we should get the right balance, because again at Easter, as at Christmas, a vast number of people go to hotels and boarding houses and expect to be able to have a good night out on the Saturday before Easter, just as they expect to have another pleasurable eve before Christmas Day.

2.15 p.m.

Mr. Driberg: I rise with some reluctance to differ from my right hon. and hon. Friends who spoke with patent sincerity and considerable eloquence. I differ from them on two grounds. There are two interests mainly concerned here. The first is the interest of the churchgoing minority of the nation—a substantial minority, admittedly at Easter and Christmas time. The second is the interest—or what may by most people be conceived to be the interest—of the nation as a whole.
On the first point, the specific interest of church-goers, there is one consideration which I do not press very hard, but it has not been mentioned hitherto: this is that, despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) rightly said about Christmas Eve as a day when most happily married people, people with young families in particular, try to get home early, it is none the less also true that late on Christmas Eve and late on Easter Eve there are substantial number of church-going Christians out and about—for the simple reason that there are late night services on those two days, both in Roman Catholic and in Anglican churches. There is the Faster vigil service and there is the midnight Mass of Christmas: it is not inconceivable, or improper, that people leaving church at about one or two in the morning should wish to call in for supper or breakfast, with or without alcoholic refreshment, on their way home. I do not say that all or most of them do it, but I have done it myself and I know that many other people do it.
My hon. Friend also referred in passing to the catering trade workers, waiters and others, who have to work

late at night on such occasions, some of whom may well be church-people themselves, wishing to go to church. On this I would say two things. First, in general, as I think my hon. Friend would agree, working hours, overtime and all that kind of thing, like Sunday work, are matters for negotiation, preferably through the trade unions concerned, and one only wishes that catering trade workers were more fully organised in their unions.
Secondly, I rather agree with the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) that people go into particular trades or professions with their eyes open, knowing the conditions of work that prevail in such trades. Just as journalists working on daily newspapers normally have to work on Sundays, as I did for many years of my life, so waiters know that they will have a rush of work at times when most of their customers are enjoying holidays. There is nothing intrinsically wrong in this. Particularly in conditions of full employment, it cannot be said that anyone is forced into the catering trade.
More profoundly, I would say that there is no such thing as a purely secular job, profession, or trade. In every walk of life we ought to be able to say laborare est orare. Even in the garish surroundings of a late-night restaurant or night club or public house, I cannot see why people serving their fellow-men and helping to make their hours of relaxation more enjoyable, in quite an innocent way, should not be doing so with some sense of vocation. It is also true that there are workers in the catering trade, waiters and others, who are church-goers and therefore particularly want to go to church at Easter or Christmas. They have other opportunities of doing so—particularly if they are Roman Catholics, as many of the Italian and Irish workers are—as a result of the pastoral concession of evening Mass authorised in recent years by the Holy See and now widely adopted in most countries in the West.
My main point, however, is a more general one. It really applies to the whole of this Bill and also to my hon. Friend's Amendment, and, indeed, to the Lords Amendment—which, I rather regret, it has been indicated that the Government are moving in this place as they did in another place. This point is simply the


overriding importance of freedom of choice: we who belong, more or less actively, to the churches have really no right Ito impose our views and our wills on the majority of our fellow-citizens who choose not to belong actively to any Christian denomination. We cannot fill the churches by emptying the pubs; we cannot get a single extra person into church at midnight on Christmas Eve or Easter Eve, or on any other occasion, by preventing him by law from getting refreshment elsewhere. This is really the basic point.
What my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East, said so eloquently would, I think, be acceptable, and indeed irresistible, if this were in the full sense of the term a Christian country, but I do not think any of us would argue that it is. Certainly it is not a Christian country in the sense that a majority of the people are actively attached to any place of warship of any denomination. We all know that it is only a relatively small minority who are so attached; and I maintain that we who belong to this minority have no right to try to enforce our ideas of Easter or Christmas or any other occasion, however holy we may hold those occasions to be, on the majority of our fellow-countrymen.

Mr. Vosper: By leave of the House, I would say that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) said that I had not made clear my attitude to the Amendments brought from another place. I thought I had said that I would advise the House to accept those Amendments, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will realise that even in going that far, I am not going far enough for my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanes (Mr. Rees-Davies) and, I think, too far for the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg).
However, I think that we are justified in asking the House to accept this, for two reasons. One is because that is the position which exists at present. Special hours certificates were not granted in respect of those days prior to the present Bill. Secondly, I hold, as my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor said, that there is a difference between Christmas and Easter Eve. The former is a festive occasion; the latter is, or should be, an

occasion far sorrow. I think that it is the practice of the people of this country to celebrate on Christmas Eve in a way that they do not in Easter Eve. I do accept that the case for Easter Eve is less strong than the case for Good Friday or Maundy Thursday. My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor moved an Amendment in respect of Good Friday himself on the Government's behalf. There is a less strong case for Easter Eve. I accept that.
Nevertheless, at present no special hours certificates can be granted for Easter Eve and it is my advice to the House that that position should be maintained, and I would not wish to move an Amendment to the Lords Amendment. Therefore, in that sense I am suporting the view expressed by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher).
I would not advise the House to accept his Amendment to the Lords Amendment, again for two reasons. One, because it has been the practice for twelve years to grant these special hours certificates in respect of London, and, secondly, as has been said on both sides, it has been an occasion for celebration by the people of this country, and, I think, rightly so, and the Government hold that the Labour Government in 1949 were right in allowing this to happen. What has been right for London for the last twelve years should surely be right for the rest of the country under this Bill.
Therefore, I would hope that this Amendment to the Lords Amendment will not be pressed, because we have gone some way towards meeting the point expressed by the hon. Member and the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope that the hon. Member will be content with my advice to the House, that we should accept the Amendments brought from another place.

Mr. Ede: One lives in really astonishing times. It is now contended by the Conservative Front Bench that something ought to be preserved because I presented it in 1949, and something which I established twelve years ago is now to be regarded, since it has lasted for twelve years, as one of the most essential parts of the British constitution. Anything established is right, according to the Conservatives; but that also entails the corollary, that nothing that ever was was wrong.
I do not hold the latter view, and I did bring before the House, after very long negotiations, amendments to the law in 1949, and I still stand by them. On Report of the Bill I said what my view was about Good Friday. I adhere to that very strongly, for Good Friday does stand in a very special position. While I do not share the views of those who think in a special way of the three hours on Good Friday afternoon, I recognise that that is a very prominent part of their religious experience, and I would do nothing to offend them.
As for Christmas Eve, the whole of Christmas has now been so commercialised in every way, and in a good many ways which do not appeal to me, that I cannot think that it is right to make any special exception in the way which has been suggested for Christmas Eve. It may be one of the prices we have to pay for the life of the Prince Consort, that he so amended the traditional English view of Christmas and Christmas Eve.
There we are—because something enacted in 1949 has lasted ever since, therefore it must not be touched. I feel that it would be quite illogical to extend the same principle to Christmas Eve. I would have thought that the best answer to the Lord Chancellor was, mortgage interest rates for people buying their houses and flats are now to be put up to such a level that they will have no money left for frivolities such as these. I certainly stand by what we did in 1949, but not for the reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Fletcher: We have had a valuable debate. It is quite obvious from what has been said that we are not content with the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman that we should leave the matter on the basis of merely accepting the Lords Amendments, although I think that we could wish to record our appreciation of the fact that the Lord Chancellor, and the right hon. Gentleman today, have intimated that they have been willing to make these concessions and have gone a very considerable way to meet the points of view we put forward.
I think, with respect to my right hon. Friend, that it is a little unfortunate that he should have been held up as chiefly responsible for the Government wishing to resist this Amendment to the Lords

Amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment to the Lords Amendment.

Amendment to the Lords Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 19, line 12, at end insert "licensed".

2.30 p.m.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This, like the following Amendment in line 13, after "of" insert "licensed", does not involve any substantial change in the law. It is purely for the purpose of clarification. It arises under the Sunday Observance Act, 1780, in this way. The effect of Clause 8 (8) is to free premises where a special hours certificate is in force from the application of the Sunday Observance Act in respect of the hours of Sunday morning during which the certificate operates. This is necessary because the Act forbids on Sunday any public entertainment for which a charge for admission is made.
If this subsection had not been inserted in the Bill, no public music and dancing could take place for the rest of Saturday and the special certificate would be abortive on Saturday nights. But the Act forbids only public entertainment. Entertainment provided in a club is private. In other words, it is otiose for this provision to apply to anything other than licensed premises and hence we wish to qualify the word "premises" with the word "licensed".

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In line 17, at end insert:
(9) Where under subsection (1) of section one hundred and eighteen of the Licensing Act, 1953, the special hours certificate for any premises or part of premises is revoked in consequence of a contravention of section one hundred of that Act, no special hours certificate shall be valid in relation to the premises or part in question, if it is issued on an application made earlier than two months after the date of the application or than such later time, if any (not being more than twelve months after that date) as may be specified in the order revoking the certificate.

Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The purpose of the Amendment is to rectify an omission in the existing law. Section 118 of the 1953 Act empowers the licensing justices in the case of licensed premises, or the magistrates in the case of registered clubs, to revoke a special hours certificate if they are satisfied on application by the police that while the certificate was in force any person has been convicted of a breach of permitted hours on the premises or on the part of the premises to which the certificate relates.
As the law stands, there is nothing to prevent a person concerned making immediate application for a new licence or certificate. The licensing justices or magistrates would be bound to grant it if the statutory conditions were fulfilled and they could not take into account that the previous licence or certificate had been revoked. The Amendment seeks to rectify that omission by giving the justices or the magistrates power to prevent an application for a new licence or a new certificate for a minimum of two months and a maximum of twelve months. I think that this will commend itself to the House as a reasonable precaution.

Mr. Fletcher: We welcome the Amendment and regard it as a very valuable additional safeguard in the law.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause A.—(EXTENDED HOURS IN RESTAURANTS, ETC. PROVIDING ENTERTAINMENT.)

Lords Amendment: In page 19, line 17, after the words last inserted, insert new Clause A: A.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, in any licensed premises to which section one hundred and four of the Licensing Act, 1953, applies and which are structurally adapted and bona fide used, or intended to be used, for the purpose of habitually providing, for the accommodation of persons frequenting the premises, musical or other entertainment in addition to substantial refreshment as required by that section (the sale and supply of intoxicating liquor being ancillary to that refreshment and entertainment), the time added by that section to the permitted hours on weekdays shall extend until one o'clock in the morning, and during that time the sale, supply and consumption of intoxicating liquor shall not be restricted in accordance with paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (4) of section seven of this Act:

Provided that this subsection—

(a) shall not apply to any part of the premises not habitually set apart for the provision of the refreshment and entertainment, nor authorise the sale or supply of intoxicating liquor for consumption in any any such part of the premises or for consumption off the premises; and
(b) shall not authorise any sale or supply of intoxicating liquor on a day on which no entertainment is provided, or at a time after the entertainment or the provision of substantial refreshment has ended, nor any sale or supply not in accordance with paragraph (a) of the said subsection (4) to a person admitted to the premises either after midnight or less than half an hour before the entertainment is due to end; and
(c) shall not affect the permitted hours on Good Friday, or extend beyond midnight the permitted hours on Maundy Thursday or Easter Eve.

(2) Where subsection (1) above applies to any premises or part of premises, nothing in section one hundred of the Licensing Act, 1953, shall prohibit or restrict the consumption in the premises or part during the first half hour after the entertainment ends of intoxicating liquor supplied before it ends.
(3) In this section "entertainment" does not include any form of entertainment given otherwise than by persons actually present and performing; and, subject to the provisions of this Act, no premises or part shall be treated for the purposes of this section as used or intended to be used for the purpose of habitually providing refreshment and entertainment, or as habitually set apart for that purpose, unless it is used or intended to be used, or is set apart, for the purpose of providing them after, and for a substantial period preceding, the end of the general licensing hours on every weekday or on particular weekdays in every week, subject to any break for a period or periods not exceeding two weeks in any twelve successive months or on any special occasion Or by reason of any emergency.
(4) This section shall not authorise the sale or supply of intoxicating liquor except with the sanction of an order of the licensing justices made on the application of a person applying for or holding a justices' licence for the premises in question, and any such order shall lapse when the licence granted is superseded on renewal or transfer or otherwise ceases to be in force, but may be renewed or varied by a further order under this subsection or be revoked under subsection (8) below.
(5) Where the use of any premises or part of premises for the purpose specified in subsection (1) above is, or is intended to be, limited to a particular period or periods of the year, licensing justices may make an order under subsection (4) above to have effect for the whole or part of the period or periods in question, but excluding any period of less than four weeks.
(6) Licensing justices may refuse to make an order under subsection (4) above, or may in such an order limit the operation of this


section to a particular part of the premises or to particular periods of the year or to particular weekdays or to a time earlier than one o'clock in the morning (and may impose different limitations in relation to different parts of the premises, different periods or different weekdays), if it appears to them reasonable so to do having regard to all the circumstances and in particular to the comfort and convenience of the occupiers and inmates of premises in the neighbourhood.
(7) Licensing justices shall not make an order under subsection (4) above unless it is shown that the condition of subsection (1) above as to the use or intended use of the premises is satisfied in relation to the premises or part of premises, to the periods, to the weekdays and to the times for which the order is to have effect, and that the premises or part in question is structurally adapted for the purpose:
Provided that licensing justices, in making an order by way of variation or renewal of a previous order may assume unless they see reason to the contrary that the conditions for the making of the previous order were and still are satisfied.
(8) Licensing justices shall revoke an order under subsection (4) above if they are satisfied on an application made by or on behalf of the chief officer of police for the police area in which the premises are situated, either—

(a) that use has not been made for the purpose specified in subsection (1) above of the premises or part of premises for which the order has effect; or
(b) that it is expedient to revoke the order either by reason of the occurrence of disorderly or indecent conduct in the premises or part or by reason of the conduct of persons resorting to the premises and any annoyance resulting or likely to result from it to the occupiers or inmates of premises in the neighbourhood or by reason of the premises having been in any respect ill-conducted.

(9) Before making an application for an order under subsection (4) above to be made otherwise than by way of renewal of a previous order (without variation), a person shall give notice of the application to the persons, in the manner and at the times required by paragraph 2 of the Fourth Schedule to this Act on an application for a new justices' licence for the premises; but if through inadvertence or misadventure he fails so to do, sub-paragraph (7) of that paragraph shall apply.
(10) Where an order under subsection (4) above is made with respect to any premises or part of premises, the holder of the justices' licence shall within fourteen days give written notice of the making of the order to the chief officer of police, and shall send with the notice a copy of the order; and if he fails so to do he shall be liable to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.
(11) The provisions of subsection (6) of section ten of this Act as to the posting of a notice in licensed premises where section one hundred and four of the Licensing Act, 1953, applies shall have effect in relation to this section as they have effect in relation to section one hundred and four; and the reference to

section one hundred and four in subsection (4) of section ten of this Act shall include a reference to this section.
(12) The powers of licensing justices under this section shall be exercised in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed by rules made by the Secretary of State.
(13) Where this section applies to any licensed premises or part of licensed premises on a Saturday, nothing in the Sunday Observance Act, 1780, shall apply by reason of the provision there of entertainment (in addition to substantial refreshment) before the time to which the permitted hours on that Saturday may extend by virtue of this section.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Fletcher: We had a lengthy debate on this point, which arose on an earlier Clause. I think that it would be quite unnecessary, therefore, to repeat those arguments and I do not propose to move the Amendment on the Notice Paper in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall), in line 31 of the proposed new Clause, to leave out "or Easter" and insert "Easter Eve or Christmas".

Mr. Vosper: This is an Amendment of some substance. It is associated with the new Clause E—(Extended hours in premises of registered clubs)—which I might be allowed to discuss at the same time, and with several consequential Amendments.
The difference between this new Clause and the new Clause E is that this relates to licensed premises and Clause E relates to registered clubs and a different form of procedure, though on the same lines, has to be introduced. This follows an undertaking which I gave to my noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel), on Report, that the Government would accept the spirit of his proposal, which was supported on that occasion by hon. Members in all quarters of the House who had been opposing or taking an interest in the Bill.
It is in respect of a proposal sometimes called "the poor man's night life". On previous occasions we discussed premises which could be provided and licensed under a special hours certificate. It has been argued with some justification that the conditions for premises obtaining special hours certificates are very vigorous and lead only to


some expensive form of establishment Which cannot be patronised by the ordinary man in the street. If it was thought right to provide late night facilities for tourists, or perhaps for those living on expense accounts, it was thought right to provide for some form of establishment catering for less expensive tastes. That was in the mind of my noble Friend and he introduced an Amendment. I said that if the House was in favour of it the Government would endeavour to introduce something on those lines in another place.
Further safeguards were necessary and it was only reasonable that what my noble Friend proposed in respect of licensed premises and restaurants should apply to clubs. This new Clause carries out that undertaking. It was welcomed on all sides in another place and I therefore hope that it will receive favourable treatment on this occasion.
The Clause enables premises to have an extension until 1 a.m. on condition that they provide music and substantial refreshment to which the sale of liquor is ancillary. The conditions or safeguards which are contained in this somewhat complicated new Clause—and I apologise for that but it is less complicated than the special hours Sections in the original Act—are four. The first is that premises must be of a kind that are able to get an extension under Section 104 of the principal Licensing Act, that is to say, they must be structurally adapted and bona fide used, or intended to be used, for the provision of substantial refreshment to which the supply of liquor is ancillary. That is the first requirement — substantial refreshment must be available.
Secondly, entertainment must be provided. Thirdly, the substantial refreshment must be available not only for the period of extension, that is after the normal closing hours, but for a substantial part before ordinary closing time. It will not be sufficient for licensed premises to serve liquor until 10.30 or 11 p.m. and then put on food to get an extension until 1 a.m. It is necessary to provide food for a considerable part of the day before closing hours. Fourthly, these extensions are discretionary on the part of licensing justices. If they wish, they can refuse them and there is no mandatory provision at all.
There are one or two other important points. Just as in the special hours certificate, if the music stops so must the sale of liquor stop. It is possible for the licensing justices or the magistrates to grant one of these certificates for a period which ends earlier than I am. They could, for example, grant it to midnight. They can vary the date of the week. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise) is here and I would say to him that they could decide in Rugby that Fridays and Saturdays would be adequate for this provision. They are not bound to grant an extension to 1 a.m. every night of the week.
The certificates must be renewed annually in the case of licensed premises. In the case of registered clubs, the same provision will apply, and where a club, under an Amendment accepted on the Report stage, gets a certificate for a period in excess of one year, it is possible for the magistrates to insist that the special extension shall be renewed annually.
The police can at any time apply for a revocation of the order on the ground of occurrence of disorderly or indecent conduct or because the conduct of persons resorting to the premises results in annoyance to neighbouring residents. It is perfectly open to residents to object to the grant of an extension of this nature. Provision is made both in this Clause and in new Clause E for the public notifying of applications for these extensions.
Those, I think, are the principal safeguards, and they are more or less in line with the safeguards that are applied in other respects in the licensing law, and I believe that they are adequate to prevent abuse of what is quite a considerable extension of the licensing law in this respect.
If I may again refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby, I have accepted his advice that, although entertainment must be provided, one live performer will be sufficient. The Clause does not stipulate, as I suggested on the Report stage, that one should have more than that in the way of entertainment.
As I say, the suggestion of my noble Friend was welcomed in this place, and this new Clause in this form was welcomed without dissension in another place, and I hope that the House will


today give it approval as on the earlier occasion.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Will my right hon. Friend deal with one of the particular matters that arose when he gave his undertaking, when I was speaking to the Amendment? As I understood it, the effect of the undertaking was to put the provinces in much the same position as London. There are paeans of praise which one can sing for the greater part of the new Clause, but, frankly, I think there is one aspect which my right hon. Friend has got wrong. The hour specified is 1 a.m. As I understood the undertaking, there was no question of having different hours in the provinces from the hours in London, and, therefore, the discretion of the magistrates would be to 2 a.m.
Would not my right hon. Friend agree that we should change 1 a.m. to 2 a.m.? This is a very small alteration, but it would meet the terms of the undertaking to put the provinces on a reasonable parity with London. As my right hon. Friend has already indicated, that will not in the slightest degree oblige the justices to grant an extension till 2 a.m. or give it on an annual basis. I submit that that would be more nearly in accordance with the general tenor of the undertaking given previously to bring the provinces into line with London on hours. I should be glad if my right hon. Friend could make a few observations about that, because it is rather important to try to get the matter right.

2.45 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: I do not know whether I shall be allowed to say what I want to say at this stage, or Whether I should delay my remarks until new Clause E comes before the House.

Mr. Speaker: I thought the House accepted that we might discuss the two Amendments together, although they would have to be put separately.

Mr. Lipton: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I followed with very great interest What the right hon. Gentleman had to say, in particular in relation to registered clubs. I view the new Clause with a certain amount of disquiet. It will make it easier for registered clubs to conduct

their operations till 1 a.m. Some registered clubs, as we have learnt from experience, are not very desirable places, and I am a little worried what the effect of a Clause like this one will be in a constituency such as the one I represent, where we have had a lot of trouble with undesirable clubs.
The new Clause may give these undesirable clubs a new lease of life. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman said that if there is undue noise and disorderly conduct and people living nearby are disturbed the police will be able to take the necessary action. However, he did not specify in great detail what that police action would be—whether it would take the form of objection to the renewal of the club licence when the next annual application had to be made.
What I am afraid of is this. A club of the type that I have in mind is usually opened in a private house in a residential thoroughfare, and it may he able to carry on its activities until 1 a.m. to the grave disadvantage of people living nearby who want to get to bed early, and these people will have no remedy which will bring the noise and disturbance caused by the club, especially with these extended hours, to a speedy conclusion.
I should feel much happier if before I were asked to accept the new Clause and also, in particular, new Clause E. the right hon. Gentleman would set out more clearly and specifically the rights of an aggrieved person who is incommoded by a club keeping open till 1 a.m. and creating noise and disturbance. If there is a speedy remedy, I shall be the more induced to accept the new Clause.

Mr. Eric Johnson: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) said. It is certainly my impression from the discussions that we had earlier that the provinces were to be put on the same level as London in this respect. I do not know whether it is still possible for my right hon. Friend to look at the matter again, but I think that it would be very much better if he could bring the provinces to the same time as London.

Mr. Ede: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether some of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) may not come within the purview of the town planning legislation? It seems to me that if there is a residential district where a fairly large house comes into the market, and is bought by people who intend to establish a club there, that might require planning consent before it could be operated. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that we had the same point with regard to betting shops.

Mr. Rees-Davies: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) is correct in saying that town planning consent would be required. I would also draw his attention to subsection (8, b) of new Clause A, which makes specific reference to
conduct of persons resorting to the premises and any annoyance resulting or likely to result from it to the occupiers or inmates of premises in the neighbourhood or by reason of the premises having been in any respect ill-conducted.
There are, therefore, two brakes—the town planning one and the one in the Clause. What will apply under new Clause A will equally apply to new Clause E, which operates with new Clause A.

Mr. Ede: I am always grateful when getting into this very murky atmosphere to have the shining light of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) to guide me. I know that the interests of evil doers will be well looked after then.
I also ask the right hon. Gentleman about the case where an application has been made, abjection taken, and a decision reached—the sort of case, already alluded to, where it is alleged that the premises have been ill-conducted and where there is a prosecution which results in a certain decision. Is it open to bath sides to the dispute to appeal to quarter sessions against the decision of the justices? Is an appeal open to either side?

Mr. Rees-Davies: I want to go back to the point I posed earlier in a rather long question which my right hon. Friend did not then wish to reply to. As he knows, this is a matter in which I was closely associated with my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel). We tried to ensure that the provinces got

fair treatment, which would, in addition, save much machinery.
Under this provision, we shall have an hotel or restaurant applying for a licence, for the form of party where entertainment is provided, as part of the general licensing. If such a licence is applicable only until 1 a.m., however, then we shall have other applications being added to the main application. I take as an example the main hotels in my constituency. There are at least two, and each has a different function every night of the week. There is a ball every night throughout the winter, at which there are cabarets and entertainment.
To have this facility until 2 a.m. would cover the case properly. There would still be complete discretion with the magistrates, which would cover all the cases in country districts. Applicants would not then have to go to the magistrates for an occasional licence from 1 a.m. to 2 a.m. They would be able to use the umbrella of a general hour of 2 a.m.
I am afraid that their Lordships in another place had it in mind that going to bed by 1 a.m. is proper behaviour for the provinces, and that it is only the sophisticated chaps in London who can be allowed to stay up until 2 a.m. There has been a mistake here. Fortunately, it is a tiny one and perhaps my right hon. Friend can change this now from 1 a.m. to 2 a.m.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) will assist me. My ignorance will be apparent. Would not his suggestion require an Amendment to the Lords Amendment? I am not in a position to accept that under the rules of the House.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Before you took the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I raised with Mr. Deputy-Speaker the question of a small Amendment to the Lords Amendment which was then before the House. He indicated that, if the Government were so minded themselves to invite the Chair to accept a small Amendment to a Lords Amendment, and if the House agreed, he might be prepared to accept. I do not know whether you would be equally prepared to do so.

Mr. Speaker: I take the view that I have no power to do so.

Mr. Rees-Davies: That being so, then I must leave the matter as it is. I agree that there is a difficulty, as we are taking this at a late stage in the Session. I do not want to send this new Clause back to another place again, merely for it to come back, so I suppose that we are left with 1 a.m. for the provinces. But I hope that my right hon. Friend might be able to make some sympathetic noises on this matter or find another opportunity of altering the time.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am quite pleased that the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees Davies) did not put down an Amendment to the Lords Amendment in time to move it today, and that it is impossible for him now to get the Government to change their minds over these timings. One a.m. for the provinces is quite in order.
The hon. Gentleman wrongly assumes that people sit up much later in the provinces than they do. People in London may stay up longer because buses and other transport run later, but in the provinces, even in some of the larger towns, transport ends certainly at midnight, and therefore it is quite reasonable that the hour of 1 a.m. should be inserted for the provinces as a general rule. For special occasions, a later hour may be applied for. I see no harm in that. Nor do I believe that the provinces, in some way, are being badly treated.

Mr. A. R. Wise: Public transport in London is shut down long before 2 a.m.

Mr. Hall: Unfortunately we are dealing with the facts, and it is a fact that, by general consent, it is considered that the hours in London should be later than those in the provinces. The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet wants to have the same hours for the provinces as those which obtain in London. I am trying to say, though I may be wrong, that, in my experience, people normally go to bed in the provinces much earlier than people in London.
In any case, there is much less noise, and the question of noise enters into this matter. We had to deal with this question on a number of occasions during the earlier stages of the Bill. The later restaurants and public houses are allowed to keep open, the more

noise there is, with people starting up their cars, the slamming of doors and the shouting of friends to each other in saying goodnight. In the provinces, that sort of thing means far more disturbance, as ordinary people go to bed at a more reasonable time than those in London. We expect noise in London—and get it, unfortunately—but not in the provinces.
I hope that the Government will not give in to the blandishments of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet, but will stick to this new Clause as it has come from another place.

Mr. Vosper: I speak again by leave of the House. First, I was puzzled by what my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) said, because this Clause applies to the provinces as it does to the Metropolis. It covers all parts of England and Wales. The latest hour of closing is 1 a.m. for London, as it is for the provinces. We have chosen that hour partly because it was the hour named in the Amendment of my noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) which attracted the House during the Report stage. We took the view that the hour should be earlier than that provided for special hours certificate premises, which have to satisfy more rigorous conditions and provide more facilities in the form of dancing and so on. It seemed right that an earlier hour should obtain in the case of these premises.
3.0 p.m.
Anyhow, Mr. Speaker, you have ruled that we should be out of order in suggesting any other hour, but I should not like to suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) that the Government would want to go beyond one o'clock. We have already said that the justices may fix an earlier hour, if they so wish, but I must make it clear that that applies to any part of England and Wales, subject to the discretion of the justices.
The hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) justifiably had certain apprehensions about his own constituency, but I hope that I can satisfy them. As I have said, and as is clear from the Clause, fairly strict conditions have to be satisfied before the applicant can apply to the justices, or a magistrate,


for a licence. It will not be possible for the ordinary public house to make an application. Secondly, the grant of the licence or certificate is entirely at the justice's discretion and it may be that the justices in the hon. Member's constituency do not grant any of these extensions. It is entirely discretionary. I must tell the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) that there is no ordinary appeal on this issue to quarter sessions. My right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will have something to say about appeal.
It is open to the residents in Brixton. or anywhere else, at any time to go to the police and lay a complaint. If the hon. Member studies subsection (8) of the new Clause he will see that it is fairly extensive and comprehensive and in paragraph (b) he will see the various grounds on which a complaint may be made. He will find that it is fairly open to his constituents to go to the police at any time and for the police at any time to apply for revocation of the extension on the grounds set out in subsection (8, b). We have been at considerable pains to ensure that people who might be upset by the noise or disturbance will have every opportunity not only at the initial grant, but at any time to lay complaint against premises which cause them annoyance.
The right hon. Member for South Shields also asked about planning permission. The setting up of club premises in the first place may require planning permission, if it is a change of use, but here we are considering licensed premises, licensed restaurants or clubs, which have licences for normal sales, or certificates, but which require an extension under the new Clause. That in itself would not normally be a matter for the planning committee, but I do not pretend to be an expert on planning law.
However, I should like the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Brixton to rest their anxieties on subsection (8), which is fairly strict and which will provide for objections to be made by those people who are aggrieved. I have never pretended that this is a small proposal. It is extensive and it logically follows from what was done in the earlier Act and it may be fairly widely used. For that reason, we have

been most anxious to write in as many safeguards as seemed necessary, and, of course, we will keep this proposal under close review.

The Solicitor-General: I do not know if the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) would like me to deal briefly with the question of appeal.

Mr. Ede: It is always a pleasure to listen to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

The Solicitor-General: The new Clause is linked to Section 104 of the 1953 Act and under that Act there is no appeal to quarter sessions. The reason is that we are here concerned with an order rather than the grant of a licence. However, if the licensing justices give an erroneous decision on a point of law, the matter is reviewable in the divisional court by use of one of the prerogative writs.
The same answer applies to the new Clause E which relates to clubs and where, in subsection (1, a), for references to the licensing justices there should be substituted references to the magistrates' courts. Under Clause 26 (1), a club may appeal to quarter sessions against a decision of a magistrates' court refusing to issue or renew a registration certificate and so on, but that does not apply to the provisions of new Clause E which are parallel with Section 104 of the 1953 Act, as they should be. Under new Clause E, a decision of the magistrates' court would be reviewable by the divisional court if it were an erroneous decision on a point of law.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 25, line 5, at end insert:
(8) Subsection (1) and, so far as relates to appeals against a refusal to give consent under that subsection or to declare u provisional grant final, subsection (5) above shall with any necessary modifications apply in relation to provisional grants of licences under the Licensing (Seamen's Canteens) Act, 1954.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment extends the improvement to the provisional grant procedure made by Clause 14 to seamen's canteens, otherwise they would not have the benefit of it.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause B.—(RESTRICTION ON GRANT OF JUSTICES' LICENCE FOR PREMISES ON SPECIAL ROADS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 26, line 7 at end insert new Clause B:
(1) Premises shall be disqualified for receiving a justices' licence if they are situated on land acquired or appropriated by a special road authority, and for the time being used, for the provision of facilities to be used in connection with the use of a special road provided for the use of traffic of class I (with or without other classes).
(2) For the purposes of this section—

(a) "special road" and "special road authority" have the same meanings as in the Highways Act, 1959, except that "special road" includes a trunk road to which by virtue of section nineteen of that Act the provisions of the Act apply as if the road were a special road; and
(b) "class I" means class I in the Fourth Schedule to that Act, as varied from time to time by any order under section twelve of the Act, but if that Schedule is amended by such an Order so as to add to it a further class of traffic, the order may adapt the reference in this section to traffic of class I so as to take account of the additional class.

Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment gives effect to the desire expressed on Report that licensed premises should be prohibited on motorways. It may appear a little strange to hon. Members that in certain places there is a reference to trunk roads, but that is because the definition of a motorway is governed by various Statutes administered by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, and to make certain that the whole of the motorway is excluded from the possibility of licensed premises being set up on them, a definition in these terms is necessary. It in no way extends to ordinary trunk roads which are not motorways. I mention that because a first reading of the new Clause might lead to some misunderstanding.
I should make it clear that this will prevent any licensed premises from being established on motorways. The law at the moment gives a discretion to licensing justices to allow the grant of a table licence, but under this new Clause that will not be possible. Therefore, in no form will it be possible for any licensed premises to be established on an existing motorway, or one which will be built in the future.
That was the desire expressed by the House on an Amendment moved on Report by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). In another place approval was given to this, and I think that the House will wish to give it approval today.

Mr. E. Johnson: I have never liked this proposal. It seems senseless that we should refuse to give a licence to premises on motorways. Our motorways are undoubtedly the safest roads in the world, yet when one gets off the motorways on to a narrower and more dangerous road with many corners and bends, and with traffic coming towards one as well as following one, it is possible to stop and get a drink.
Human nature being what it is, the effect of the Amendment will be that people who intend to go on a long journey on a motorway will take a bottle of liquor with them in the car. That used to happen in parts of Western Canada where people had to travel long distances and there were no opportunities for calling in anywhere for refreshment.
I do not wish to suggest that people ought to drink when they are driving, but it seems stupid to make a law that one can drink all one wants until one gets on to a motorway, and then one cannot drink again until one gets off it. I do not suppose it is any use my suggesting that we should reject the Lords Amendment. The feeling of the House is probably against me, but I wanted to express that point of view.

Mr. Fletcher: I am sure that the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) has expressed a minority view. I do not think that it is at all representative of public opinion. I congratulate the Government on having carried out the promises they made at an earlier stage. I think that they have been wise in accepting the view put forward from both sides of the House and widely supported in the country. It would be a great mistake to permit any kind of licensed premises on the motorways.
Motorways are essentially long-distance roads. We should all rejoice that the Government have been strong-minded about this and are determined


to remove the temptation to motorists on the motorways to stop and get a drink.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 16.—(MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS AS TO GRANT OF LICENCES, PROCEEDINGS AND FEES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 26, line 42, leave out from second "premises" to "(and" in line 44.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment has the effect of allowing an ordinary removal of a justices' licence from existing premises to any other premises, however far away and in whatever county they may be, subject to the approval of the justices in the receiving area. At present the law recognises two sorts of removal of a licence. The removal of a licence means taking the licence from the premises which are at present in enjoyment of it, and for which it is in force, and granting it in respect of other premises. The law recognises a special removal, as it is called, where the premises for which the licence was granted are about to be pulled down or occupied under any Act for the improvement of highways, or any other public purpose, or where the premises for which the licence was granted have been rendered unfit for use by fire, tempest or other unforeseen and unavoidable calamity.
Apart from those special removals, all other removals are ordinary ones. Under the present law the geographical scope of an ordinary removal is limited to the same county, under Section 24 (4) of the 1953 Act. Some doubt was expressed whether a licence can he moved over the boundaries of a county borough. Therefore, Clause 16 (3), to which the Amendment relates, enabled a licence to be removed from a county borough or a county to an adjoining county. That provision was inserted to meet a point urged by the Association of Municipal Corporations, the reason being that a county borough authority may often be redeveloping the centre of an old town, and it is very expensive for it to acquire licences that may have to be suppressed there. It is much less expensive and

more convenient if those licences in the centre of that old town can be moved to new premises in the area to which the population is being moved.
However, it has been further urged upon the Government by the Association, on reconsideration, that as the Clause stands it might not go far enough. We occasionally get overspills which leap a county. We can think of some of the arrangements made by the London County Council with some counties in the South of England, and I believe that the same situation applies to some of the Manchester areas.
It is for that reason that we propose to take out the words
in the same county or county borough or in a county or county borough adjoining that county or county borough
and to leave the matter absolutely at large. It will still be at the discretion of the licensing justices in the receiving area whether the licence can be removed. It is for them to say whether they are prepared, in their discretion and after hearing any objections, to allow a licence to be removed into their area. But if they are so willing the law will not prevent the removal merely on the ground that the two areas are not in adjacent counties.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause C.—(LICENSING JUSTICES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 27, line 31, at end insert new Clause C:
C. A justice having an interest in the profits of any premises shall not be thereby disqualified under subsection (4) of section forty-eight of the Licensing Act, 1953, or otherwise from acting under that Act or this Act, if he would not fall to be treated as having such an interest but for the fact that he has a beneficial interest in shares of a company or other body having an interest in those profits, and if his beneficial interest in the shares of the company or body does not extend to shares of a total nominal value greater than twenty-five pounds, or to more than one-hundredth in nominal value of its issued share capital or of any class of its issued share capital.
In this section "share" includes stock, and "share capital" shall be construed accordingly.

3.15 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This new Clause relates to a matter which we discussed a great deal both during the Committee stage and on


Report. It arises out of a very awkward situation which came to the notice of the courts, where, in Barnsley, all the licensing justices were members of a co-operative society. It was, therefore, found impracticable to assemble a licensing bench to consider an application by the society in respect of licensed premises which the society had, or for which it might want to acquire a licence, without including magistrates who, on the face of it, had an interest in the application.
This arises from Section 48 (4) of the 1953 Act, which contains a prohibition that any justice cannot act in a case which concerns any premises in the profits of which he is interested. As I say, in the case of the Barnsley justices the Court of Appeal interpreted those words as being equivalent to the profits of the trade or business carried on in the premises, and that concerns licensing justices who were either members of the society or married to members of the society and who granted an off-licence to the society. In fact, in Barnsley it was impossible to find justices who were not members of the society to hear an application from the society.
I am told that although Barnsley was an extreme example there are a number of other towns in which so many of the justices are members of a co-operative society that it is becoming difficult, if not impossible, to arrange for an application by the society to be heard by justices who are not disqualified by the provisions of Section 48 (4) as interpreted by the Court of Appeal.
I should make it perfectly plain that the Court of Appeal was quite clear that in the Barnsley case which it had to consider there was no bias on the part of the bench. Indeed, the application of that reason was not invalidated. On the other hand, once the law had been declared there was no question that it had to be met.
To meet that difficulty when the Bill was introduced it contained a provision that a justice should not be disqualified from acting in a case concerning any premises by reason of his having a beneficial interest in the shares of the company or any other body carrying on business on the premises if the total nominal value of the shares was not more than £500, or one-hundredth of the total

nominal value of the issued share capital, whichever was the less.
That was considerably criticised during our Committee stage discussions. Some hon. Members felt it undesirable in principle, because they said that it would allow people to act as judges, or, at any rate, appear to act as judges, in their own cause. On the other hand, other hon. Members considered that the amount of £500 was too high, particularly when it would represent merely the nominal amount of the shares and the actual amount might be very much greater. In view of the feeling of criticism in the Committee the Government withdrew the Clause and promised that at a later stage they would consider how the problem might be met.
On Report, the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), who has explained to me why he cannot be here today, moved an Amendment very much on the lines of the provision which the Government had originally put in the Bill, to substitute an actual value of £250 for a nominal value of £500. I gave reasons, which I will not repeat, explaining why that was not acceptable I suggested that there was a very serious case to be met and that a solution might be found on the lines that the Lords have found in the Amendment.
I will deal with the merits of the Amendment. I shall not take much time on this, because we have discussed it at great length on two occasions. We are concerned with two conflicting principles, between which we must find a practicable solution. The first is that it is obviously prima facie undesirable that any adjudicating body should have, or even appear to have, an interest in the decision at which it is asked to arrive. If members of a licensing bench are shareholders in the concern which is the applicant, they will appear to have such an interest.
On the other hand, I pointed out in relation to that principle that the situation at Barnsley, and inevitably elsewhere, was quite unreal. There a number of justices gave up their virtually lifelong shareholding in order to make themselves eligible to sit and so that a bench could be assembled. Anybody appearing before such a bench would know the history of the matter. Still, this is one principle which is put forward by the rigorists.
The other principle, which I submit to the House is equally fundamental, is that nobody shall be invalidated from sitting on a bench or sitting as a justice of the peace on the ground alone of his political affiliation. The Co-operative Society is not only a commercial society in which the members join. It is also a political party in which the shareholding is a sign of political allegiance. Somehow, we must reconcile these two principles in the practical way in which we in this country try to solve this sort of problem.
It seems to me that what is contained in the Lords Amendment is the practical and sensible solution. It fixes a lower limit. If the shareholding does not exceed the lower limit, it shall not invalidate the justice from sitting and adjudicating. Nobody would imagine for a moment that a shareholding of £25, or not more than one-hundredth of the total share capital, would provide any practical bias. Indeed, the Court of Appeal found in the Barnsley Justices case that there was no practical bias. On the other hand, it will enable a bench to be assembled in these places without requiring people to give up possibly a lifelong shareholding which they regard as a sign of their political allegiance. I commend this solution to the House.

Question put and agreed to

Clause 17.—(CONSENT NOT REQUIRED FOR CERTAIN ALTERATIONS TO LICENSED PREMISES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 28, line 11, at end insert:
(4) This section shall apply in relation to a canteen licensed under the Licensing (Seamen's Canteens) Act, 1954, as it applies in relation to premises for which a justices' on-licence is in force.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Section 134 of the 1953 Act is applied to seamen's canteens by the Second Schedule to the Licensing (Seamen's Canteens) Act, 1954. Clause 17 modifies the restrictions of section 134 and gives a right of appeal against refusal of consent to alterations. The Amendment makes corresponding provisions for the case of alterations to seamen's canteens.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause D.—(NEW PROVISIONS FOR PROTECTION OF YOUNG PERSONS.)

Lords Amendment: In line 11, after the words last inserted, insert new Clause D:
(1) Subject to section twenty of this Act, in licensed premises the holder of the licence or his servant shall not knowingly sell intoxicating liquor to a person under eighteen, or knowingly allow a person under eighteen to consume intoxicating liquor in a bar, nor shall the holder of the licence knowingly allow any person to sell intoxicating liquor to a person under eighteen.
(2) A person under eighteen shall not in licensed premises buy or attempt to buy intoxicating liquor, nor consume intoxicating liquor in a bar.
(3) No person shall buy or attempt to buy intoxicating liquor for consumption in a bar in licensed premises by a person under eighteen.
(4) In the foregoing subsections, and in sections one hundred and twenty-six and one hundred and twenty-seven of the Licensing Act, 1953 (which contain other provisions for the protection of children and young persons), references to a bar shall not apply to a bar at any time when it is, as is usual in the premises in question, set apart for the service of table meals and not used for the sale or supply of intoxicating liquor otherwise than to persons having table meals there and for consumption by such a person as an ancillary to his meal; and nothing in subsection (1) or (2) above shall prohibit the sale to or purchase by a person who has attained the age of sixteen of beer, porter, cider or perry for consumption at a meal in a part of the premises usually set apart for the service of meals which is not a bar or in a bar at any such time as aforesaid.
(5) The holder of the licence or his servant shall not knowingly deliver, nor shall the holder of the licence knowingly allow any person to deliver, to a person under eighteen intoxicating liquor sold in licensed premises for consumption off the premises, except where the delivery is made at the residence or working place of the purchaser, nor shall any person knowingly send a person under eighteen for the purpose of obtaining intoxicating liquor sold or to be sold as aforesaid from the licensed premises or other premises from which the liquor is delivered in pursuance of the sale:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply where the person under eighteen is a member of the licence holder's family or his servant or apprentice and is employed as a messenger to deliver intoxicating liquor.
(6) A person guilty of an offence under this section (other than an offence under subsection (2)) shall be liable on a first conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds and on a second or subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds; and on a person's second or subsequent conviction of such an offence the court may, if the offence was committed by him as the holder of a justices' licence, order that he shall forfeit the licence.


(7) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (2) of this section shall be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.
(8) Where a justices' licence is forfeited under subsection (6) above, justices of the peace shall have the like power to make a protection order under subsection (3) of section twenty-three of the Licensing Act, 1953, as they have in a case falling within that subsection, and the provisions relating to transfers of licences shall apply accordingly.
(9) In subsection (1) of section one hundred and twenty-seven of the Licensing Act, 1953 (under which the holder of a justices' licence is guilty of an offence if a person under eighteen is employed in a bar of licensed premises when the bar is open for the sale or consumption of liquor), the word "justices'" shall be omitted.
(10) Subsections (1) to (3) and subsection (9) above (but not subsection (4)) shall apply in relation to any canteen (within the meaning of the Licensing (Seamen's Canteens) Act, 1954) in respect of which a licence is in force under that Act as if the canteen were licensed premises, but with the substitution for any reference to a bar of a reference to the canteen; and in subsection (6) above the references to a justices' licence shall accordingly include a licence under that Act.
(11) For the purposes of subsection (6) above a conviction of an offence under section one hundred and twenty-eight or subsection (1), (4) or (5) of section one hundred and twenty-nine of the Licensing Act, 1953 (or under any of those enactments as applied by the Licensing (Seamen's Canteens) Act, 1954, or by the Occasional Licences and Young Persons Act, 1956) shall be taken into account in the same way as a conviction of an offence under this section other than an offence under subsection (2).

Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords Amendment.
This rather formidable-looking Clause gives effect to the views expressed in Committee and on Report that the present prohibition of sales to young persons should be extended to off-sales. It prohibits sales to young persons under the age of 18 on off-licence premises. The reason why the Clause looks so formidable is that we have taken the opportunity of consolidating the law respecting the sales of liquor to young persons all in one Clause. I think that that is a reasonable thing to do, because the House has always been concerned throughout the passage of the Bill to try to protect the interests of young people. I think that it will be helpful to have all these provisions in one Clause.
The only other paint is that the Clause extends the prohibition to premises

which have retail excise licences only, such as theatre bars, where at present, it is perfectly legal for a young person to get a drink. This Clause goes some way to meet the views expressed by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Commander Kerans) on Report. These views were opposed in some quarters of the House, but undoubtedly the majority wished to see the prohibition extended to the age of 18. That was the wish of the House, and I hope that the new Clause will commend itself to it today.

Commander J. S. Kerans: I am most grateful to the Government for the way in which they have drafted this Amendment from another place, and I am sure that it will be welcome to a very large section of the community. Looking at the Report on Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, which was published yesterday, and particularly the figures for juvenile crime, we realise that this Clause will go some way towards reducing the number of these indictable offences arising from drunkenness and the purchase of liquor by young persons below the age of 18. I am still a little unhappy about the identification of people under 18 and of those of 18 and above. I think that this is a difficult thing to overcome and that only the passage of time will show whether it really works. I am not at all certain whether, perhaps, fines upon the parents should not have been imposed, rather than on the publican or licensee, but only time will tell how it will work. I am grateful to the Government for what they have done, and I am sure that the majority of people will also be grateful.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: I think that we ought to be very careful, when legislating to get rid of abuses of the law, that we do not by so doing cause great inconvenience to people exercising their legitimate rights under the law.
It seems to me to be absolutely ridiculous that a father should be at liberty to go to a public house or an off-licence, quite legally buy a bottle of whisky and then feed it to a child of 10 at home, whereas under these provisions it is quite illegal for a man to send his son aged 17 to an off-licence to get a bottle of beer for the father to consume


at home. To my mind, that is utterly ridiculous.
There are places in this country, including my constituency, where the father is at work by day and returns home at night, wanting both refreshment and a meal at home. The mother, however, is unable to leave the house, because she has children to look after and has the meal to prepare, and it is quite customary for children to be sent, not to a bar, but an off-licence or the off-licence department in a public house, to purchase, generally, beer for the father who has come home from work. This is something utterly reasonable, and without doubt it will be a hardship to a certain number of people if this right is withdrawn.
Had this Amendment merely said that it would henceforth be illegal for an off-licence department of a public house or an off-licence shop to supply spirits or wine to persons under 18, I think that, on balance, it would have commended itself to me. The evil which we are endeavouring to obviate is that of young persons buying wines and spirits at off-licensed premises, taking them away and drinking them. What we should not be trying to prevent is the sort of practice which I have described where parents in reasonable need of refreshment send their children to fetch it for them.
Moreover, if people wish to drink wines or spirits at home, there is no good reason why they should not purchase such drinks some time in advance and have them standing by. On the other hand, where there are no facilities for storing beer at a reasonable temperature and in proper conditions at home, there is something to be said for obtaining it at the time one wishes to drink it.
This series of new provisions in the Lords Amendment does not, therefore, commend itself to me. I doubt very much that those who drafted it fully considered what the effects would be. In my view, since we are endeavouring to tidy up the Bill, it would be the lesser evil to send this new Clause back to another place to be redrafted in a somewhat more intelligent and just form.

3.30 p.m.

Mr. Vosper: I appreciate what my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton

(Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) says. I said something to similar effect in Committee. I realise that some inconvenience will be caused as a result of the Amendment. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that the majority opinion of the House was that something on these lines should be introduced. The Government considered that there was no alternative but to go the whole way in this respect, and that is what we have done.
I do not think that people will find it quite so difficult to adjust themselves to the new procedure as, perhaps, my hon. Friend imagines. I am following the desire expressed by the House during the Report stage, and the Government have always made clear that on this Measure they would be responsible to parliamentary and public opinion on any particular point. That is what we have done in putting down this new Clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 22.—(QUALIFICATIONS FOR REGISTRATION.)

Lords Amendment: In page 34, line 47, at end insert:
(14) Where the rules of a club make provision for a class of members to have limited rights or no rights of voting in relation to the affairs of the club, any question whether the requirements of paragraph (c) of subsection (6) of this section are satisfied in relation to the club, or whether the rules of the club conform with the Fifth Schedule to this Act, shall if the court determining the question so directs be determined as if the exclusion of that class from voting to the extent provided for by the rules were authorised by the provisions of that Schedule as to voting at general meetings or elections; but the court shall not so direct unless satisfied that the provision so made by the rules is part of a bona fide arrangement made in the interest of the club as a whole and of that class of members for facilitating the membership of persons who are precluded by distance or other circumstances from making full use of the privileges of membership, and is not designed to secure for a minority of the members an unfair measure of control over the affairs of the club.

Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Paragraph 4 (2) of the Fifth Schedule governs voting at general meetings or elections and provides that all members of a club must be entitled to vote, with the exception of the classes of members listed in the proviso. The Amendment provides for country membership.
On Report, my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) and other hon. Members expressed concern that country members would be forced, under the provisions of the Bill, to vote at elections held by clubs. I voiced some sympathy with the point made and explained that to exempt country members as such might provide an opportunity for those who wished to evade the law to do so by creating a special class of members and so manipulate control of the club.
I believe that this Amendment overcomes that difficulty and meets the point made by my hon. Friend. It provides for the exclusion of country members from voting in the affairs of clubs, but it gives the court power to investigate the arrangement and to refuse to register a club unless the court is satisfied that the non-voting country membership is pant of a bona fide arrangement made in the interests of the club as a whole and of that class of members and is not designed to achieve for a minority of members an unfavourable measure of control. I think that the Amendment meets the point which was made without, at the same time, opening the loophole for the evasion of the law which I was so anxious to avoid.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 27.—(INSPECTION OF PREMISES BEFORE FIRST REGISTRATION.)

Lords Amendment: In page 40, line 18, leave out from "premises" to "may" in line 19, and insert:
an officer of the local authority authorised in writing by that authority.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Perhaps it would be convenient to discuss with this Amendment those in line 25, to leave out from "and" to "shall" in line 26, and to insert:
a constable authorised in writing by the chief officer of police
and in line 27, at the end, to insert:
but a chief officer of police shall not so authorise a constable unless in his opinion special reasons exist making it necessary that the premises should be inspected for the proper discharge of his functions in relation to the registration of clubs.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes.

The Solicitor-General: These Amendments were tabled by the Government

in another place in response to an undertaking which I gave to do something on these lines. I said, I think with the general approbation of the House, that it was clear that the consensus of opinion of hon. Members on the Report was that we should limit the police right of inspection.
The effect of the Amendments is to allow inspection by the police on first application for a registration certificate or on an application for renewal of a registration certificate in respect of different, additional or enlarged premises only if the chief officer of police is of opinion that special reasons exist which make it necessary that the premises should be inspected for the proper discharge of his functions in relation to the registration of clubs.
That is very much on the lines of an Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) and the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), and it fulfils the undertaking which I gave.
Under the Eighth Schedule, the police will not in any event be able to inspect the premises of a club on first application for a registration certificate under the new procedure if the club has for the three years preceding the coming into force of the new procedure been registered under the 1953 Act in respect of the premises. The police powers of inspection are now very strictly limited to cases in which it is absolutely necessary.

Mr. Fletcher: This is a very sensible arrangement, and I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for giving effect to proposals which we put forward at an earlier stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 28.—(RIGHTS OF FIRE AUTHORITIES IN CONNECTION WITH REGISTRATION OF CLUBS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 40, line 42, at beginning insert:
() As regards any matter affecting fire risks the local authority, if they are the fire authority, shall have the like rights in relation to the inspection of premises under section twenty-seven of this Act on any application for the renewal of a registration certificate for the premises as they have in the case of an application for the issue of a certificate.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Perhaps it would be convenient to discuss with this Amendment those in line 44, after "issue" to insert "or renewal", and in line 45, to leave out from "premises" to the end of line 3 on page 41.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes.

The Solicitor-General: These Amendments were tabled by the Government in another place in response to a suggestion by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) to which I undertook to give consideration before the Bill was considered in another place. Although we all wish to see inspection of club premises limited as far as possible, the hon. Gentleman argued, and I conceded, that there might well be a special case for inspection by a fire authority, particularly in view of the very serious disaster which took place not long ago, and that the fire authority should be given power to inspect club premises, not only on the initial application for registration, but on any renewal. On thinking the matter over, we were convinced that the point made by the hon. Member was valid and potent. The Amendment gives effect to it.

Mr. Fletcher: Again, I acknowledge with gratitude the fact that the Government have adopted suggestions that we thought would be of advantage.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

New Clause F.—(APPLICATION OF PART III TO MINERS' WELFARE INSTITUTES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 42, line 48, at end insert new Clause F:
.—(1) A miners' welfare institute may be registered under this Part of this Act as a club subject to and in accordance with subsection (2) below, and in relation to such an institute while so registered the Licensing Act, 1953, this Act, and any other enactment relating to the sale or supply of intoxicating liquor shall have effect (subject to that subsection) as if—

(a) the institute were a club occupying the premises of the institute and having for members the persons from time to time enrolled as members of the institute; and
(b) intoxicating liquor supplied or kept for supply by or on behalf of the trustees or managers in carrying on the institute to

members or others were the liquor of the club supplied or kept for supply on behalf of the club.

(2) In relation to the registration of a miners' welfare institute in respect of any premises of the institute sections twenty-two to twenty-eight of this Act shall apply as they apply in the case of a club and premises occupied by the club, except that the provisions mentioned below and so much of any other provision as refers to any provision so mentioned shall not apply, namely,—

(a) in section twenty-two, subsections (6) to (9), (13) and (14); and
(b) in the Sixth Schedule, sub-paragraph
(c) of paragraph 5 and paragraphs 6 to 8;

and in relation to any miners welfare institute registered under Part IX of the Licensing Act, 1953, paragraphs 1 to 3 of the Eighth Schedule to this Act shall also apply.

(3) In this section "miners' welfare institute" means an association organised for the social well-being and recreation of persons employed in or about coal mines (or of such persons in particular); but nothing in this section shall apply in relation to a miners' welfare institute unless either—

(a) it is managed by a committee or board of which not less than two-thirds consists partly of persons appointed by or on the nomination of, or appointed or elected from among persons nominated by, the National Coal Board and partly of persons appointed by or on the nomination of, or appointed or elected from among persons nominated by, an organisation or organisations representing persons so employed; or
(b) the premises of the institute are held on trusts to which section two of the Recreational Charities Act, 1958, applies.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The purpose of the new Clause is to extend to the miners' institutes, which are a well-known part of the social scene of the country, the benefits of Part III of the Bill. Otherwise, they would be excluded from these benefits because, being charitable trusts, they are run by trustees and these trustees are not elected by members of the institutes. Thus, the members of an institute have no control over the admission of new members or over the property of the institute. In spite of that, the social importance and the good conduct of these clubs has been recognised, not only generally, but also by other legislation, and it would be quite wrong, in the view of the Government and, no doubt, of the House, that for constitutional reasons they should be excluded from the benefits.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 31.—(INTERPRETATION, AND TRANSITIONAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 43, line 24, at end insert:
(3) Any power to make orders conferred by this Act on the Secretary of State includes power to vary or revoke an order made in the exercise of that power.

Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Clause 8 (7) provides that in such part of London as may be specified by order of the Secretary of State, the hours of sale or supply of liquor in hotels, restaurants and clubs which have a (special hours certificate will extend to 3 a.m., as compared with 2 a.m. elsewhere. Clause 16 (1) provides that the fees chargeable in licensing matters may be fixed by order of the Secretary of State. There may be occasions when it is desirable in the light of changes in circumstances to vary or revoke an order made under either of these powers. The Amendment will enable this to be done.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Second Schedule.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISION FOR POLLS IN WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE.)

Lords Amendment: In page 48, line 6 at end insert—
(3) Where on any poll a greater number of persons claim to attend the counting as observers than is allowed under sub-paragraph (2) above, the county returning officer or mayor in choosing between them shall have regard to their opinions about Sunday opening (if known to him) with the aim of designating, as far as he can, those for and those against Sunday opening in equal numbers.

Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment meets a point raised by the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) relating to the selection of observers at the count resulting from a poll for Sunday opening in Wales. The hon. Member made the point that the returning officer should have regard to the viewpoint expressed by those who had been appointed as observers. That is what the Amendment does. It does not go quite as far as the hon. Mem-

ber would wish, but it gives the returning officer power to select from those who request to be present at the poll the required number according, as far as he can gather, to the views they hold.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Fourth Schedule.—(LICENSING PROCEDURE AND APPEALS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 54, line 6, at end insert:
(7) The clerk to the licensing justices shall for each licensing sessions keep a list of the persons giving notice under this paragraph of their intention to apply for the grant of a justices' licence; and the list shall show the name and address of the applicant, the nature of the application and the situation of the premises to be licensed, and for the fourteen days preceding the sessions shall at all reasonable times be open to inspection by any person on payment of the appropriate fee (if any) and without payment by any officer of customs and excise.

Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment meets a point put to me by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall), who has explained to me why he has had to leave. He asked that lists should be kept by the licensing justices of all licensed premises in their district. I promised to consider the matter. The Amendment gives effect to that suggestion. The only difference I have provided is that a fee shall be payable for inspection.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 55, line 9, at end insert:
Provided that no order for costs shall be made by virtue of this sub-paragraph against any person who does not appear art the hearing of the appeal and oppose the appeal.

3.45 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment has the effect that where an applicant for a licence appeals against a refusal to grant the licence, an objector who opposed the application before the licensing justices but who takes no part in the appeal cannot be made to pay any of the costs of the


appeal. An amendment which was sponsored by the Law Society commended itself so much to the Government as being so obviously sensible that they moved an Amendment to this effect.

Question put and agreed to.

Fifth Schedule.—(PROVISIONS AS TO CLUB RULES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 60, line 5, at end insert:
and
(c) if the rules make special provision for family membership or family subscriptions or any similar provision, the rules may exclude from voting either generally or on particular matters, all or any of the persons taking the benefit of that provision as being members of a persons family, other than that person.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Paragraph 2 (4) of this Schedule governs voting at general meetings or elections by clubs and provides that all members must be entitled to vote with the exception of the classes of members listed in the proviso. The Amendment provides for the case of family membership. As hon. Members will know, many clubs have rules that provide that the husband or wife of a member may become a member on payment of a reduced subscription but may not vote, and sometimes that concession is extended to the children of members. The Amendment adds the family class of non-voting members to those classes already in the proviso.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Seventh Schedule.—(PROCEDURE FOR REGISTRATION OF CLUBS AND RELATED MATTERS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 64, line 9, leave out "twenty-one" and insert "twenty-eight".

Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This results from a point made in another place that insufficient time had been given to allow objections to be made against the registration of clubs. The original proposal was that twenty-

one days should be allowed for making objections. It was suggested that this should be extended to twenty-eight days. It is sponsored by one of the principal local authority associations and the Government think it reasonable and suggest that the House should accept it.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 64, line 13, at end insert "fire authority".

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Perhaps we may discuss this Amendment with the Amendments in lines 16 and 37.
Clause 27 (3) provides that if on an application by the chief officer of police or a local authority it is made to appear to a magistrates' court that after reasonable steps had been taken by and on behalf of the applicant to inspect the premises in good time under subsection (1) it was not possible to do so within the time allowed, the court may extend the time allowed. In Clause 28 (2) a fire authority which is not a local authority enjoying the right of inspection given by Clause 27 is given the same rights as regards any matter affecting fire risks in relation to the premises—in other words, as if it were a local authority. The proviso to paragraph 3 (1) of the Seventh Schedule provides for a magistrates' court extending the time allowed under Clause 27 to the chief officer of the local authority to make objections to the application.
The first two of the Lords Amendments simply add a reference to the fire authority to this proviso, so that if a court extends the time allowed to the fire authority for inspecting the premises the court shall also extend the time within which the fire authority may make objection to the application.
Paragraph 3 (5) of the Seventh Schedule provides that where a club applies for a renewal of a registration certificate in respect of different, additional or enlarged premises and a magistrates' court under the proviso to sub-paragraph (1) of the paragraph extends the time for any person to make objection to the application, the court may order that the certificate to be renewed shall not continue in force by virtue of Clause 25 (6) beyond a date specified in the order.
The third Amendment removes the words
in respect of different, additional or enlarged premises
because under the Lords Amendments which the House has just approved to Clause 28 fire authorities are given the right of inspection at every renewal—that was the hon. Gentleman's point—and not only on renewal of a registration certificate in respect of different, additional or enlarged premises.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 65, line 22, at end insert:
and in relation to any such application subsection (1) and (3) of section seventy-seven of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952 (which provide for compelling the attendance of witnesses), shall apply as they apply in relation to a complaint.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Lords Amendment provides that on the hearing of an application by a club for the issue, variation or renewal of a registration certificate the magistrates' court shall have power to compel the attendance of witnesses. The courts already have those powers when hearing a complaint to strike off a club from registration or, as it becomes under the Bill, the cancellation of a certificate, but it is obviously necessary to extend that. For example, a club may wish to call a witness to rebut an allegation of an objector. It is only right that the club should be able, if necessary, to compel the attendance of such a witness.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 65, line 27, at end insert:
by any member of the committee having the general management of the affairs of the club or by any other officer of the club duly authorised.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That this House both agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Lords Amendment allows a club to be heard before the magistrates' court by the chairman or secretary or by any member of the management committee or any other officer of the club duly authorised. This will make it easier for the

club which cannot afford or does not wish to be legally represented to put its case to the magistrates.

Mr. Fletcher: I think that this is a very valuable Amendment which will make the business of conducting the affairs of some of these clubs very much easier.

Question put and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

THE COINAGE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Mr. Whitelaw.]

3.56 p.m.

Mr. Martin McLaren: I have been much interested to read the recent Annual Reports of the Deputy-Master of the Royal Mint. They are written in a refreshing and frank style and I believe that they contain some points about coinage on which it would be worth having a brief discussion in the House.
There is nothing in our everyday life that concerns the whole population more than our coinage system. We want a coinage which is both convenient and attractive. We all realise that the fundamental question affecting our coinage, on which all other questions depend, is whether a change should be made to a decimal system, but I do not intend to discuss that today because it would not be appropriate in an Adjournment debate. I take our present system of pounds, shillings and pence as I find it and leave the decimal issue to Governments who have now been debating it among themselves for rather more than one hundred years.
The first point which I should like to discuss is whether the denominations and values of our coins are convenient having regard to their diminished purchasing power. The only change made so far, and it has been in recent months, is the abolition of the farthing. That has not been regretted save perhaps for the purposes of libel actions. Otherwise, we have the same system that used to obtain in Victorian days. The highest value of coin in general circulation is a half-crown. After that there is a gap until we come to the ten-shilling note.

Mr. Tom Driberg: It is not quite the same as in Victorian times. There were four-shilling pieces then.

Mr. McLaren: I am much obliged. That is quite true, but I do not know Whether those coins circulated in very large numbers.
It is also true that last year the Mint coined 1 million crown pieces. Although that sounds a great many, it is a relatively small number. Those coins are perhaps inconveniently large for general circulation and tend to be regarded as collectors' pieces. I feel that there is a case for new coins of higher denominations and I should like to see those coins made of silver alloy to distinguish them from the cupro-nickel coins which we now have.

It being Four o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Noble.]

Mr. McLaren: Last year the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) asked two Questions about a smaller silver five shilling piece, but on neither occasion did he get any very definite reply. Perhaps the Government will be able to tell us something further today. I should like to see not only a new smaller five shilling piece but perhaps a ten shilling piece as well.
After all, countries in Europe such as Austria, France, Italy and Western Germany now have silver coinage again, and one wonders why we should not, too. If we did, we should revive a tradition which until 1946 had existed in this country for more than a thousand years. It is true that silver coins would have a higher initial cost, but account should be taken of the very small loss of weight that such coins suffer during their working life.
On any such silver coin I should like to see again the famous design by Pistrucci of St. George and the dragon which we used to see on the gold sovereign. It is a curious paradox that people all over the rest of the world are able to have a look at these coins, but we in the United Kingdom are not.
The next point that arises is the size of the penny. Possibly the demonetisation of the farthing may pave the way

for a reduction in what Lord Keynes described as the preposterous size and weight of the penny. It is really too much for a coin which is now of such small value.
My third point is the co-existence of the florin and the half-crown. No other important system of coinage has in its upper range two coins which are so near each other in size and value. It is interesting that the florin was introduced more than one hundred years ago in order to facilitate the change to a decimal system.
All the changes which I have so far mentioned are referred to in the 1958 Report of the Deputy-Master, and in his Report for 1959 he said that comment on those suggestions have been preponderantly in favour of some rational change in our conservative habits. He spelt "conservative" with a small "c."
Another suggestion is that there might be experiments in the use of coins made not of metal but of plastic. They would be cheaper to produce. They would be lighter. One could have different denominations in different colours. On the other hand, admittedly, they might be easier to counterfeit. I am not necessarily suggesting that we should try this experiment in the United Kingdom, but it might acceptably be tried in some part of the dependent Commonwealth.
There is a passage in the 1960 Report of the Deputy-Master, which was published only a short time ago, which is headed "Artistic defects of coinage today." In previous centuries, a good deal more scope was left to the designers of coins than has been so in recent decades. For instance, there are coins of King Henry VIII showing him seated on a throne of State with his sceptre and orb, and others showing him standing in a ship. There were equestrian portraits of coins of James I and Charles I. But the modern portrait heads of sovereigns are perhaps relatively conventional and dull.
I should like to see a kind of renaissance of coin design and perhaps some of our most distinguished artists encouraged to enter this rather specialised field and allowed to be more adventurous in designing coins. After all, the great Leonardo da Vinci spent a year in the Mint in Rome.
I am glad to see that there are one or two other hon. Members present who kindly take an interest in this subject, and therefore I do not wish to take up more of our valuable time. I end by saying that I feel that the Mint itself does some very good work. There are few Government Departments which are exporters, but the Royal Mint is one of them. It does a considerable business for foreign Governments by way of making coins for them, and it secures that business in the face of severe world competition. We do not often discuss the work of this Department, but I hope that the House will feel that it has been worth while to do so this afternoon for a few minutes.

4.7 p.m.

Mr. Tom Driberg: I want briefly to support what the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. McLaren) has said in his most interesting and informative speech. The point of design which he raised is very important, and I am glad that he suggested that design might perhaps be improved and that distinguished artists in this kind of miniature work should be given greater opportunities for showing what they can do.
I therefore specifically ask the Economic Secretary to the Treasury whether the Council of Industrial Design is consulted, or perhaps will be consulted, on this matter. The Council has, after all, now got a special interest in ensuring that Royal portraits at least shall be worthy and becoming.
It is true, as the hon. Member said, that I asked some Questions last year, and also had some correspondence with the Treasury, about the proposal for a small silver crown piece, which was originally, of course, proposed by the Deputy-Master of the Mint himself and might, therefore, have been expected to commend itself to the Treasury and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer who is himself Master of the Mint.
I am a little puzzled by the course of these exchanges last year, because at first, the Chancellor seemed reasonably well disposed towards this suggestion, but, after a good deal of postponement and deferment and perhaps inevitable delay, he seemed rather to cool off. I wonder whether we can be told this afternoon whether the pro-

posal is, after all, acceptable. I hope that we can.
If one of the objections today should be that it might be difficult to distinguish in a hurry between a small silver crown piece and perhaps a shilling, or some other coin, there is no absolute reason, surely, why it should be circular. The dodecagonal 3d. bit is a precedent for departing from absolute rotundity or circularity, or whatever it is, and I do not see why we could not do so in the case of a small crown piece.

4.10 p.m.

Sir Godfrey Nicholson: I am particularly interested in taking part in this debate, because twelve or more years ago, when a coinage Bill was passing through the House, I secured the inclusion in it of specifications for the crown, which, at that time, was not in production. Even in its present size, the crown is not an unpopular coin and I am sure that there could and should be some sort of crown. I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. McLaren) said about St. George and the dragon. It is interesting to note that it was just 101 years ago that the present penny was introduced, and I should be sorry to see its size reduced.
Apart from those minor details, a numismatist or ordinary layman interested in artistic matters could not fail to see that the standard or design of our coinage has steadily declined over the last sixty years. When I introduced a short debate about the crown, twelve years ago, to fortify my argument I produced in the House a tray of examples, which I had borrowed from a numismatist, of all the crowns ever produced in this country. It was shattering and depressing to see the very high standard of the medallist's art which we had had in the past compared with that of today. We now have a very low relief and dreary design.
I have in my pocket a half-crown dated 1938. The armorial bearings, the coat of arms, are lamentable. The portrait of King George VI is not too bad, but the coat of arms is lamentable. I believe that there is an advisory artistic panel at the Mint. I am not sure of whom it consists, but it does very poor work. Even as recently as Queen Victoria, both the obverse and reverse


of many of our coins were things of intense beauty, but no one would claim that for our present coins.
Coinage has great publicity value for a country. If foreign tourists coming here could find that our coins were articles of genuine artistic beauty and craftsmanship, it would have a very good effect upon the country's reputation.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary will consult his right hon. and learned Friend the Master of the Mint and point out that there is just cause for complaint about the steady deterioration in the artistic merits of the English coinage ever since the turn of the century. I hope that the debate will not have been wasted and that my hon. Friend will not treat this as an occasion when he does a little stonewalling. I appeal to him, as I know that he is sensitive and artistic himself.

4.13 p.m.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): At the end of a week during which we have been debating the whole range of economic and financial affairs, it is not inappropriate that we should conclude our proceedings with a discussion of our coinage.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. McLaren) for having taken the initiative in this matter and to you, Mr. Speaker, for selecting this subject for debate. I am not suggesting that the physical appearance of the coins we use and which, as has been pointed out, is important to the whole community, is not a matter of controversy, but at least the atmosphere of the House this afternoon is somewhat calmer than it was yesterday evening.
It is a useful exercise to compare the coins now in use with some of the pleasing and well-designed coins of former centuries, and also to consider how far our coins meet the currency requirements of modern times. I think that it will be generally accepted that no radical change in our present coinage should be embarked upon until we have decided whether or not to adopt the decimal system, to which I want to refer later.
Subject to that, I agree with my hon. Friend that it is a pity that a crown piece is not in general circulation, and there is little doubt that the size of the present coin has been a deterrent to its every-day use. It was made freely available for ten years up to 1937, but, except for the Jubilee and Coronation years, demand never exceeded a few thousand pieces a year. We will certainly bear in mind the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend.

Sir G. Nicholson: When my hon. Friend says that the demand never exceeded a few thousand pieces a year, does he mean that the banks never demanded them? I remember having crown pieces. I used to try to get as many of them as I could. If I produced one from my pocket, other people used to say, "Do you want that? I will give you two half-crowns for it". They were anxious to have it. The Mint is barking up the wrong tree if it thinks that demand can be judged by demand from the banks.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Why are 1936 crown pieces of enormous value to crown collectors? What happened to all the others minted in that year?

Mr. Barber: I cannot answer the last question, but I will try to find the answer, and write to my hon. Friend.
As regards the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson), I think I am right in saying that the demand for coins must inevitably reflect the views of the banking community, because it is through them that the coins eventually come into the hands of the public. My hon. Friend may well be right in thinking that in this case there was a greater demand by the public than was shown in the requests made by the banks. This is the useful sort of point which a debate like this brings out, and perhaps I might say, in passing, that I know that the Deputy-Master of the Royal Mint and those who work with him are pleased that this topic has been chosen for discussion this afternoon.

Sir G. Nicholson: It is not a question of demand from the public. The question is whether the public would welcome it if it were available. I have no doubt that it would be welcome, Think of the


joy of a child who was given a "five-bob" piece instead of two measly, ugly half-crowns.

Mr. Barber: I do not know whether I should comment on that last point. We will certainly bear in mind the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West and the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) that there should be a smaller crown piece.

Mr. Driberg: A silver crown piece.

Mr. Barber: I would not like to raise false hopes that at present it would be appropriate to reintroduce a silver alloy into our coinage as suggested by the hon. Member for Barking.
My hon. Friend referred to the half-crown and the florin. He is not the first person to voice a certain amount of criticism about the matter. The sterling coinage system is probably unique in having two denominations in its higher range so close to one another in value, and the historical background to this situation has been referred to by my hon. Friend.
The half-crown, like most of our other denominations in use today, dates from the sixteenth century or even earlier, but, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the florin was introduced more than 100 years ago, in 1849, when there was talk of a possible move to decimalisation. At the same time, the minting of half-crowns—this will bring joy to the ears of my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham—was suspended. Of course, it was of a different design in those days.
In 1874, after several attempts to obtain a view in favour of one or the other, the line of least resistance was taken and the minting of half-crowns was resumed and the two have been in circulation side by side ever since. It is an interesting fact that demand for the two coins today is about equal and that there are approximately 400 million of each in circulation. We are faced with the same problem as our predecessors, but I hope that in a general review of the coinage we would next time grasp the nettle firmly and make up our minds finally in favour of one or the other.
As for the bronze coinage, the sizes and weights of the penny and halfpenny date back to 1860, when the purchasing

power of these coins was fairly considerable. It is obvious that in any coinage review these coins will have to come up for special consideration. I should add that it would not be possible to make any appreciable change in the size of the penny, as suggested by my hon. Friend and by Lord Keynes, without also reducing the halfpenny or dispensing with it altogether.
My hon. Friend also raised the interesting question of a possible plastic coinage. He mentioned some advantages, such as different colours. Certainly, metal is by no means the only material from which coins have been made in the past and from which we may produce coins in the future. But the remarks made by the Deputy-Master of the Mint about plastic coins, in his Report for 1959, have been widely misconstrued. He was not suggesting that the British people would welcome some new form of aesthetic tiddlywink into the coinage. But circumstances are not the same the world over. It is not merely a question of trying the matter out in one of our Dependencies.
The fact is that in other parts of the world circumstances are quite different. For example, there are several overseas customers of the Royal Mint who need coins of a face value very much lower than ours, and the cost of these coins in conventional materials greatly exceeds their face value. Consequently, the Royal Mint had the idea that a plastic coin might be acceptable in those different circumstances, and I think that the Mint deserves full credit for experimenting in this field. It is too early to say whether the idea is really practicable, but the Mint will bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.
On the subject of overseas customers, I would like to thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks about the activities of the Royal Mint in this highly competitive coinage field. He referred to the Mint's record in the export world. If every manufacturer did as well as the Royal Mint our balance of payments difficulties would practically be over, because last year no less than 60 per cent. of the whole output of 700 million coins was exported.
I am not a numismatist, but I can well understand the interest in the question of design, which has been referred to this afternoon, and which, to some


extent, has been stirred up by the observations of the Deputy-Master of the Mint in his latest Report. Although I would not suggest that those hon. Members who have spoken did not themselves have any interest before that, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West, the hon. Member for Barking and my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham have all referred to this very important question.
Coin production has a very long history. Many of the earliest coins of Greece are today looked upon as great works of art. I know that criticisms have been made of United Kingdom coinage, especially in recent years. But in the past we also have produced coins of very high artistic merit and excellent technical execution—the work of artist-engravers and also of artists and engravers working in close association. But there are some very real problems associated with what I might call the art of coinage. Most of the great coin designs of the past were the work of artist-engravers who conceived and executed their designs in the dimensions of the coins themselves, and often direct in the steel of the working punch from which the dies were struck.
In recent times the practice has developed—and this may account for some of the criticisms made this afternoon about the depth of the relief—partly through the shortage of artists who are capable of working in miniature, but also in response to ever-increasing coinage demands, of reducing, largely by mechanical means, designs conceived and modelled in much larger scale than the coins themselves. The change of scale and the imperfections of the reducing process have at times led to the production of coins which certainly do not give the aesthetic satisfaction of some of the older ones.
The Deputy-Master of the Mint is trying to overcome this weakness by bringing into closer co-operation and association the artists and the Royal Mint engravers. The famous design of St. George and the dragon by Pistrucci, to which my hon. Friend referred, is perhaps the best known of the reverse designs. Its use for both gold and silver coinage in the past and its continued use today for gold sovereigns—

of which we do not see very many—are, I think, clear indications of the high esteem in which this design has been held. But art dies if it stands still. It would not, I think, be unreasonable to hope that the artists of this country might produce an equally exciting and satisfying design which could go down to history as a product of the present Elizabethan age.

Mr. Driberg: The Council of Industrial Design?

Mr. Barber: So far as I know, the Council of Industrial Design has not been consulted. But, certainly, the importance of having available expert advice on this matter was recognised some years ago, when the Royal Mint Advisory Committee was set up. That is referred to and its members are set out on page 21 of the Report for 1960. I can assure my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Barking that the suggestions which have been made will be brought to the attention of that Committee.
When the new pound note was issued I learned the hard way that it is not for a Treasury Minister to express an authoritative view on this most contraversial question of design. But it is certainly of the utmost importance, and it is not something which we can ignore. I agree with the hon. Member who said that this is something which makes an impression on the foreigner coming to this country. I can assure the House that it is a matter which is being taken very seriously. This is one reason why the Deputy-Master of the Mint and those who work with him are pleased that interest has been shown by the selection of this topic for consideration today.
I said earlier that in any consideration of the coinage the question of decimalisation was highly relevant. As my hon. Friend has said, it is now 137 years since this House approved a Motion which recommended
the application of the decimal scale
to coins. Since then, of course, the subject has been under almost continuous discussion. We are now pressing forward with a complete review of the matter and we hope to announce a decision to the House, one way or the other, later this year.

Sir G. Nicholson: I hope that the House will be consulted first.

Mr. Barber: Our conclusions are bound to have important consequences for any future decisions on the coinage. I should like, once again, to thank my hon. Friend for having raised this most interesting topic and for providing me with an opportunity to make some observations on the subject.

Sir G. Nicholson: I hope that my hon. Friend will say that the House will be consulted before any decision is reached about decimalisation.

Mr. Barber: I should not like to give any such pledge on an occasion like this, when we are considering the coinage generally. It was only incidentally that I mentioned decimalisation. I think that it would involve legislation, although I am not sure.

The Question having been proposed after Four o'clock, and the debate having continued for half on hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Four o'clock.